Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

A film about these times

What A Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire (2007) | Watch Documentary Free Online

Correlation does not imply causation !
however much you wish it would.
My theory about the massive increase in Blacks makes as much sense as yours
as has the same graph shape .

post 114

Originally Posted by blue

I still blame Black people as ever increasing numbers of them seem to be tipping the Earth's fragile climate balance.
I'm sure a graph could be produced showing the correlation between the massive increase in blacks over the last 200 years and the rise in the earths temp.

You see White folk's eco friendly light skin simple reflects the suns heat straight back into outer space ! ,
while black people's greedy dark skin absorbs the heat them slowly releases it into the atmosphere with deadly effect .

Sorry if this makes me sound racist but it's just the hard science of colour and makes as much sense than any other theory.

'There is no scientific consensus' on sea-level rise, say scientists ? The Register

'There is no scientific consensus' on sea-level rise, say scientists
Just don't have enough data to say what'll happen

Many others boffins assess that the ice sheets are so massive that they will take centuries to respond to likely levels of warming. Recent first-of-its-kind analysis pulling together all the factors in play suggested that the worst possible case in 2100 would be 30cm with the likely result less - in other words, no major change from the 20th century situation. And that was before new studies came out reflecting the fact that global warming has been basically on hold for the last decade and more, meaning that warming forecasts should be revised downwards.

But it appears that there simply isn't any scientific consensus on the Antarctic and Greenland melt rates - and therefore there isn't one on sea levels either.

et etc etc

CO2 is a trace level gas, 50% increase or 100% sounds big, but tell me what percentage of the atmosphere it is?

It's just silly to blame one trace level gas in the atmosphere. There's plenty more that have been added to the atomosphere in the passed 200 years, we may as well blame increased air travel for stirring up the skies too or increased numbers of McDonald restaurants for farting cows.....

Add 100ppm of salt to your drinking water. Big difference. Or 0.001 ppm of Abrin to your bodymass. Bigger difference.

Instead of pulling numbers out of thin air and tell me what happens when you increase the amount of natural salt in your drinking water by 50% or even 100%.

Actually, mineral water is classified as such when it contains at least 250ppm disolved minerals. Quite similar to the original CO2 content in the air before the pollution era. Now different brands of mineral water have distinctly different flavours, don't they? You can choose the brand that fits your needs best, for example EVIAN for sportsmen. Highest magnesium content, 26mg/litre. That's what, 26 ppm?

So you're saying the air will smell different?

Kingwilly introduced the idea that traces don't matter. As in many things, they're what makes a difference. The total greenhouse effect on Earth was 33 Celsius before the industrial age, caused by traces of CO2, O3, CH4, N2O and CFCs, and even water vapor is only a trace gas. Can be 4% on sea level, but in the whole atmosphere, it's a mere 1,000ppm. Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm increased the greenhouse effect by a little over 2%. It will rise way beyond 1,000 ppm just by continuing to burn oil and coal, and the feedbacks become stronger. The warmer athmosphere can hold more water wapor, methane is released from deposits in permafrost, and possibly on the ocean floor. The shrinking glaciers reflect less UV light back to space.

And then the extra warmth causes more evaporation, more clouds, more sunlight reflected back into space and we're into the next ice age.

No. For starters, clouds form only when microparticles are present, dust, soot and stuff. Only the low clouds reflect sunlight, the ones high in the atmosphere increase the greenhouse effect. So when there's more of both, no change either way.

Clouds also form around cosmic rays, which are also a particle .
A quiet sun, like now , means more of them arriving on earth .
When the suns activity is stronger more are batted away.
Hence why the last 10 years have seen more clouds and thus global cooling .

The climate is Sun driven .

How is the summer going in the US and UK? Do your satisfaction? Boston is 7 degrees above average at this time of the year, and other places more than ten? That sounds substantial.




Britain set for two-week heatwave | Mail Online

You see whilst you can say that the climet is sun driven as its the primary source of energy in the climate. however there are many many other factors affect the nature of the worlds climate, so complex that the only way to understand how everything hangs together is to modle it on a massive computer and see how closely its calulcations match the past, present and in time the future.

This is where concepts of conciseness, skepticism and denialism come into play.
So how do you tell the difference between the crank, the denalist and the heretic genius, the skeptic? Fundamentally it comes down to the respect they have for the data, the facts. The skeptic will bend their opinions to fit that data, whilst the denailist having complete confidence in their innate knowledge, rather like religions that run on faith overriding observed knowledge, they will bend the facts to fit their opinions.

in the early days of a fiend of research, there will be little consistency with theories and ideas all over the place. HIV research in the 1980's, the nature of light, electricity and magnetism in the 19th century. These theories stand and fall not on retoric, debate or even documentaries; they stand and fall on how closely they explain observations... and as time goes on most theories fall by the wayside whilst a conciseness falls around the theory until someone comes along with one that demonstrably provides a better match to observation. for example there was a conciseness that a replicating infectious disease could only be caused by a living organism containing either DNA or RNA. That was until someone discovered diseases caused by prion proteins, initally people thought the chap was a crank and gave explanations as to why he was wrong, he carried out further research producing data that disproved his critics and further demonstrating his theory... over time the consensist moved to his theory and the remaining skeptics had to result to cherry pickling and distortion to support their positions. a little bit later he got his noble prize. What he never did was plain lie or use those creative lies of the propagandist cherry picking, misrepresentations, distortions, false logic, rehtoric..... he simply allowed the data to speak for its self.

And there it is, with the internet giving the same voice to both the crank, the proagandist and the verified speker of truth the same voice, we have to learn how to differentiate between those who want us to follow them down the rabbit hole and those who want to help us see the truth. Its remarkably easy... if they use cherry picking, misrepresentations, distortions, false logic, rehtoric then really you should not believe anything they say until you can independently verify their facts....

For quite a while there has been a strong consensus that global warming is real and that the primary driver is co2 released by human activities. This consensus has occurred because multiple independent models of the earths climate produce silular results and closly match observations. There have been skeptics that have seen issues with all of these models that could cause them to consistently wrong. But these scpetics gathered together and created their own model desgned from the outset to be free of the issues that the skeptics believed made the existing models wrong.
In the end their results matched the existing models at which point, the skeptics joined the global warming consensus and the denailists ignored the data and followed the innate their beliefs.

As for some of the more recent posts,

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's ironic that the people that complain about those rubbishing the man-made Global Warming theory are extremely quick to rubbish the science that suggests otherwise: CO2 and temperature change

Seems to me that its perfectly to critique someones theory or even documentary, its how science works... obviously denigration is not releasable. In the case of this chap, if you were to watch his documentary you would discover that for some reason although his documentary was made in 2007... you will see that he present various graphics which cover rather arbitrary time ranges. I mean why would you show a graph of temperature over a 120 years and stop at 1980? would it not be more logical to show a graph to 2007 or 2000? But then if you listen to his explanation as to what the graph show, you can see why. The data from 1980 onwards contradicts his explanation. And this is just one example of cherry picking being used mislead people.
In doing this the director has demostrated that he is willing to ignore any data that disagrees with what he wants to be true. And therfore anyone beliving anything he says without verifying its true would be rather foolish leap of faith.... not that different to those chaps blowing up wedding receptions to get their 72 virgins.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

CO2 is a trace level gas, 50% increase or 100% sounds big, but tell me what percentage of the atmosphere it is? It's just silly to blame one trace level gas in the atmosphere. There's plenty more that have been added to the atomosphere in the passed 200 years, we may as well blame increased air travel for stirring up the skies too or increased numbers of McDonald restaurants for farting cows.....

Its not the amount thats important its the effect that counts. After all if trace levels of chemicals were not an issue then we would have no nerve gas, pollution issues and you would need more than a pin heads worth of vitamin B12 to live.
Its the effect that counts, thats why you need to use models to work out whats going on.. And yes the models do include the effects of air travel, even the effects of the high suphur fuel used by the merchant shipping fleets, which also artificially increases low altitude cloud cover.

Originally Posted by blue

Clouds also form around cosmic rays, which are also a particle . A quiet sun, like now , means more of them arriving on earth . When the suns activity is stronger more are batted away. Hence why the last 10 years have seen more clouds and thus global cooling .

Not quite the theory. The idea is that ions created by cosmic rays collading with the air lead to the formation of clouds and the cooling effect. The problem with this being the primary driver of climate change and not co2 is that the changes co2 levels are a better match for temperature change. further more over the last 20 years that lack of correlation has been increasing, with increasing temperature at the dame tim as increasing cosmic ray levels.

Greenhouse gases emitted today will cause sea level to rise for centuries to come. Each degree of global warming is likely to raise sea level by more than 2 meters in the future, a study now published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows. While thermal expansion of the ocean and melting mountain glaciers are the most important factors causing sea-level change today, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will be the dominant contributors within the next two millennia, according to the findings. Half of that rise might come from ice-loss in Antarctica which is currently contributing less than 10 percent to global sea-level rise.

“CO2, once emitted by burning fossil fuels, stays an awful long time in the atmosphere,” says Anders Levermann, lead author of the study and research domain co-chair at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Consequently, the warming it causes also persists.” The oceans and ice sheets are slow in responding, simply because of their enormous mass, which is why observed sea-level rise is now measured in millimeters per year. “The problem is: once heated out of balance, they simply don’t stop,” says Levermann. “We’re confident that our estimate is robust because of the combination of physics and data that we use.”

The study is the first to combine evidence from early Earth’s climate history with comprehensive computer simulations using physical models of all four major contributors to long-term global sea-level rise. During the 20th century, sea level rose by about 0.2 meters, and it is projected to rise by significantly less than two meters by 2100 even for the strongest scenarios considered. At the same time, past climate records, which average sea-level and temperature changes over a long time, suggest much higher sea levels during periods of Earth history that were warmer than present.

For the study now published, the international team of scientists used data from sediments from the bottom of the sea and ancient raised shorelines found on various coastlines around the world. All the models are based on fundamental physical laws. “The Antarctic computer simulations were able to simulate the past five million years of ice history, and the other two ice models were directly calibrated against observational data – which in combination makes the scientists confident that these models are correctly estimating the future evolution of long-term sea-level rise,” says Peter Clark, a paleo-climatologist at Oregon State University and co-author on the study. While it remains a challenge to simulate rapid ice-loss from Greenland and Antarctica, the models are able to capture ice loss that occurs on long time scales where a lot of the small rapid motion averages out.

If global mean temperature rises by 4 degrees compared to pre-industrial times, which in a business-as-usual scenario is projected to happen within less than a century, the Antarctic ice sheet will contribute about 50 percent of sea-level rise over the next two millennia. Greenland will add another 25 percent to the total sea-level rise, while the thermal expansion of the oceans’ water, currently the largest component of sea-level rise, will contribute about 20 percent, and the contribution from mountain glaciers will decline to less than 5 percent, mostly because many of them will shrink to a minimum.

“Continuous sea-level rise is something we cannot avoid unless global temperatures go down again,” concludes Levermann. “Thus we can be absolutely certain that we need to adapt. Sea-level rise might be slow on time scales on which we elect governments, but it is inevitable and therefore highly relevant for almost everything we build along our coastlines, for many generations to come.”

The multimillennial sea-level commitment of global warming

I tend to believe what I see with my own eyes.
I don't see frozen puddles here in Oz that I saw as a child growing up.
Whether that means the end of the world, or a natural progression, all I know is it's out of my hands as well as any domesdayers.
Enjoy the ride and don't cop the guilt trip of what will my grandkids think about me.
Did you ever thank your grandparents for being such responsible custodians of the planet?

Originally Posted by ludwig

Did you ever thank your grandparents for being such responsible custodians of the planet?

In person , no .

Do I think of earlier times ? Often .

I'm from the county where Oberhof is located, the place that produced more Olympic medals than any other, at least in winter sports. During the games in the nineties and till 2002, the local papers printed medal tables with our county as separate nation, placed fourth or fifth. Oberhof is on top of the Thuringian Forest, about 900 metres elevation, and had guaranteed a metre or two of snow from November till March. Not anymore. Have been myself in Thailand for almost a decade now, but still watch the sports events on TV. There is every year a Biathlon world cup in the first week of January, the anual Tour the Ski starts in Oberhof, and world cups or championships in Luge and Bobsleigh.

There is hardly ever snow now in the winters. Tracks of artificial snow trough the otherwise green forests that can be stabilized up to 15 degrees are put there at the start of the season, that's it. Sometimes they get some natural snow, but it melts away within a week at best. No problem for the luge and bobsleigh run, that's iced arteficially, but the place lost ski jumping, nordic combination and alpine skiing already. Most recently, it build a snow tunnel 2 km long to provide a facility for Biathlon and Cross Country.

Where I live , Northern England , the Romans 2000 years ago grew grapes for wine , now it's too cold .
It's called climate change.

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
Study of semi-fossilised trees gives accurate climate reading back to 138BC
World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now

Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age | Mail Online

In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun.

The study is published in Nature Climate Change.

It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC.

The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming

^ but it's ok for Teakdoors global warming crows to carry on ....

Places in Germany hit 40 degrees last weekend, that's 13 degrees above average for the month. The all time high is 40.2 Celsius, reached twice in 1983 and 2003.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Ripped from here

From Steven Goddard, self promoted science denier.

Reason for the growth this year is on the site you linked and its referenced sites. Low solar activity.

Exactly what are you deniers going to use for ammunition when the current low solar cycle finishes and temperatures skyrocket back up?

You will be back to "Look there's still snow in winter! Global warming my arse!".

Do you understand what a trend is?
Or that 'climate' is a blocking of weather data over a minimum period of 30 years?

Well, back to vineyards in the UK then!