Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

I don't know if this article was posted here before but it does mention Climate Change Deniers and seeing some of the posts on this thread seems fitting.

Food for thought.

Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Did you see the record snow fall in Jerusalem today?

Believable: Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, talking snakes, 800 year old people, 6000 year old galaxies

Unbelievable: Millions of tons of pollutants spewed into the atmosphere every year for a century having an effect on the planet.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Last month saw the hottest global November surface temperature on record, according to the latest data from NASA.

Last month saw the hottest global surface temperature ..... since about 1880.

That's only 133 years. Planet earth is about 4.54 billion years old.

133 divided by 4.54 billion =

I'll let you do the math .... but it's a a minutely small fraction of the time earth has been around. Hardly enough to be definitive of any proof of "long term" trends.

Global Warming Alert!

Satellite Data Shows Arctic Sea Ice Surging by 50%

It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels.

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.
The North Pole is still there, and growing. BBC News reports that data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft shows that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 9,000 cubic kilometers (2,100 cubic miles) by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) during the same time last year."

Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller

Where's that darn 'ol Al Gore when you need him?

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Have some fun and calculate how much extra energy is needed to cover 100,000 square miles that normally get none in 1" of snow.

What do you mean by "extra" energy?

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Have some fun and calculate how much extra energy is needed to cover 100,000 square miles that normally get none in 1" of snow.

What do you mean by "extra" energy?

Al Gore can probably tell you...

Al Gore doesn't mean much to me, I'm German. What's the matter, did your inane right-wing blogs instruct you to mention the name in every post, and what'll be achieved by that?

We’re Still Losing Ice at the Poles

One of the key indicators and consequences of global warming is ice loss at the Earth’s poles. As the planet warms, on average and over time, every summer more ice melts. It refreezes in the winter, but again as temperatures rise, in general we’ll see less ice at any given time as compared to the year before.

The situation for the two poles is different. In the north the Arctic ice floats on the ocean, and on the south the Antarctic ice is over land and sea. This means that they way they melt — how quickly, how much, even where specifically in those regions — are different. Still, the fact is the ice at both poles is melting. We’ve known this for quite some time (see Related Posts below for more).

And some new data show it’s even worse than we thought.

Measurements of Antarctic ice made bythe European Space Agency’s CryoSat satellite show that it’s losing about 150 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice on average every year just from the West Antarctica ice sheet alone. This is notably more than what had been previously estimated, and is likely to be more accurate due to the satellite’s better coverage and use of radar to measure ice thickness.

The bulk of this loss is from melting glaciers, with their runoff flowing into the sea. This in turn is raising the sea level by about 0.3 millimeters per year (again, just from the West Antarctic ice sheet alone). It’s unclear if this increase in ice loss is due to faster thinning of the ice, or due to better coverage of the satellite in regions otherwise difficult to access. Either way, the ice is melting more rapidly than previously thought.

This amount of loss is staggering; it’s equivalent to about a hundred billion tons. That’s equivalent in volume to a mountain about four kilometers (2.5 miles) high, roughly the size of a medium-size mountain in the Rockies.

I’ll note that some people who deny global warming like to talk about ice in Antarctica increasing, not decreasing. This is at best misleading; the sea ice fluctuates every year, and has grown marginally recently, but this is tiny compared to the loss of land ice. Overall, Antarctica is losing ice, rapidly, with more melting every year.

Bad News, Borealis Edition

Maps of ice loss in the Arctic show it dwindling over time. A fair question to ask is, when will we see an ice-free summer there?

This question isn’t all that easy to answer; it depends on past measurements as well as models of how the ice melts. Most conservative models estimate it will happen before the end of this century, but how long before? Some say it may be 50 years or more, some much sooner.

In the Guardian, Nafeez Ahmed reports on a study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and undertaken by scientists with the U.S. Navy has shown that the Arctic could see its first nearly ice-free summer in just three years, in 2016. These results actually came out last year, and are based on ice loss from a few years back, using a relatively straightforward extrapolation.

In the paper, the scientists claim that ice loss is underestimated by most models because they don’t include feedback mechanisms; that is, processes in the system that amplify other processes. For example, as water warms it cannot hold as much dissolved carbon dioxide. That CO2 is released in the air, accelerating the warming process because it’s a greenhouse gas.

I’m not sure how much stock to put in a prediction of an ice-free Arctic in just a few years, but that day is clearly coming, and soon. Looking at the sea ice extent (essentially, how much area is covered by ice) over the past few years, we’ve lost about 2 million square kilometers over 15 years.* The extent is at roughly 10 million sq. km now, so extrapolating we have 75 years left. I’ll note that’s very rough, and I’d consider that only a decent upper limit to how long it will take. With feedback processes, that’s likely to be a severe overestimate.

To give you a more visceral sense of just how much trouble we’re in, Andy Robinson, who created a video earlier this year showing the ice loss, has updated it with data including this year’s minimum:

Note that this is volume of ice, not extent, which is a better measure of real loss. Extent fluctuates more, and doesn’t include the thickness of the ice; you can get very thin ice in the winter adding to the extent but not really adding to the total amount of ice. Plus, thin ice melts more readily in the summer.

And, of course, this puts lie to the whole idea that sea ice in the Arctic is “recovering”, which we knew was more hot air from the deniers all along anyway.

Put it another way we are not losing ice, we are gaining pure fresh water .
Also shipping will be able to take the shoter route through ice free channels in the north pole = less polution.
win win !!

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Al Gore doesn't mean much to me, I'm German. What's the matter, did your inane right-wing blogs instruct you to mention the name in every post, and what'll be achieved by that?

He's the poster boy for all you hard-core believers in MMGW.

Hate to break it to you but in OZ they have shit-canned that Carbon Tax Credit snake-oil rip-off thing. Got a bit of common sense going down there now the moodbat Libs are out of power.

That whole carbon credits scam was just that, a scam for dodging responsibility for carbon pollution concocted by bureaucrats and big business for their own benefit. It did nothing to reduce carbon levels and only created profits without responsibilities for a few corporate giants and countries, IMO.

Originally Posted by blue

Put it another way we are not losing ice, we are gaining pure fresh water .
Also shipping will be able to take the shoter route through ice free channels in the north pole = less polution.
win win !!

We would also gain more land. If the Antarctic ice melted, the 14,000,000 km² of unspoilt land will more than compensate for the disappearance of a few small islands in the Pacific. And think of all the minerals that we could easily mine once the ice disappears! Latest reports suggest there could be diamonds there, too.

The terraformers are at it again. You read too much cheap science fiction, trade it for science facts. And political ones, google for Madrid Protocol.

Originally Posted by Neverna

more than compensate for the disappearance of a few small islands in the Pacific

hey man.... I live in Hawaii....

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Have some fun and calculate how much extra energy is needed to cover 100,000 square miles that normally get none in 1" of snow.

What do you mean by "extra" energy?

To bring the snow from the Alps to Saudi Arabia. Here's a snapshot of Northern Italy from yesterday, the snow on the ground is artificial, for the Winter Universiade.

To bring the snow from the Alps to Saudi Arabia? Was the snow actually in the Alps before it went to Saudi Arabia? Nope!!

Technically, no. I just wondered why Saudi Arabia got snow, while there is none in Europe. Another strange winter. See the pics of wintersport facilities in the last weeks.

Klingenthal Germany, mid-November


Kuusamo Finnland, end-November


Lillehammer Norway, start of December


Titisee Germany, mid-December


Ostersund Sweden, end-November


Hochfilzen Austria, start-December


Annecy France, mid-December

The snowfall and skiing start dates are always fickle in Europe , besides winter has hardly started yet .
The Middle East needs moisture, so its all good , and nothing to worry about .

Here are nine major reasons climate change — and the carbon pollution that drives it — helped make 2013 one of the worst years in human history.

1. Global CO2 levels hit 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. For the first time in recorded history, thanks to rampant burning of fossil fuels, CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit 400 parts per million in May 2013.

2. It’s getting hotter, faster. In September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its fifth assessment report describing in detail what the world’s top scientists understand about climate change. Its conclusions? Scientists are more certain than ever (between 95 and 100 percent) that humans are causing the planet to heat up through greenhouse gas emissions.

3. A huge number of animals and plants face extinction. 2013 offered sobering reminders that people aren’t the only ones impacted by climate change. The fourth IPCC assessment report projects that 40 to 70 percent of species could go extinct if earth warms by 3.5 °C, and a study this year found that many species could have to evolve 10,000 times faster to keep up with the expected climate change.

4. The world suffered deadly heat, drought, and wildfires. Much of the U.S. may be in a cold snap now, but 2013 was marked by extremes in temperature and precipitation, conditions that fueled deadly wildfires around the world. November 2013 was the hottest November on record. This summer in China, the worst heatwave in 140 years brought temperatures that reached above 105°F.

5. Choking pollution shut down population centers. When it comes to air pollution, China’s had a bad year. The world’s most populous nation imported more coal in 2013 than any country in history, and even though demand slowed in 2013, that still meant more than the 7.7 billion tonnes consumed in 2012.

6. Countries suffer disasters, but still commit to doing even less about emissions. This year, Australia experienced its hottest month on record in January, hottest September on record and multiple major wildfires after an early start to wildfire season. But in September, Australians elected Liberal party leader Tony Abbott as their new prime minister, a man who, once in office, quickly got to work making good on his anti-climate change campaign promises.

7. Sea levels broke records, amplifying the effects of storms and floods. In March of this year, global sea levels hit a record high, according to a report by the World Meteorological Association. One thing that many people don’t realize is that the primary reason sea levels have risen recently is because the ocean is warmer, and warmer water takes up more space than cooler water. So sea levels will rise no matter how much land ice melts (though there was plenty of that too). The IPCC report found that 90 percent of the trapped heat from 1971 to 2010 has gone into the oceans.

8. Much of the world is doubling down on fossil fuels. To stay on just the 2°C (3.6°F) warming path, the world will have to do even better than the 17 percent cut below 2005 levels that the U.S. and other developed countries have aimed toward in international negotiations. A study earlier this year found that developed countries will have to lower emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels at the end of the decade to stay below a 2°C rise. But global oil demand was higher than projected this year.

9. We are woefully undercounting methane emissions. Many people point to natural gas as the solution to rising carbon emissions because compared to oil and coal emissions, it releases less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The main ingredient of natural gas is methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. When burned, methane still releases CO2, just less than other fossil fuels do. The first bit of bad news is that this year, the IPCC reported that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than originally thought. This means that compared to a molecule of carbon dioxide, a molecule of methane is about 34 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year time scale — and 86 times more effective over 20 years.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

1. Global CO2 levels hit 400 ppm

It's still freezing in Yorkshire - the sea was un-swimmable again this summer
can we please please try 500ppm ..

Originally Posted by S Landreth

4. The world suffered deadly heat, drought, and wildfires

As always - 1930s dust bowl etc .

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Choking pollution shut down population center

now you're talking, pollution ! ,
but hang on I thought the problem was co2 , oh you lot are sneakily trying to cobble the 2 together again .

Originally Posted by S Landreth

experienced its hottest month on record in January, hottest September on record

ok how do they decide one period is hotter than another ?
I'll tell you they take the 3 hottest temperatures recorded on 3 different days in month , and average them .
Then they compare this figure to other historical 3 day averages ,
not very scientific is it ?
You see, one December we had in the Uk had a very hot start and was recorded as the hottest ever , then towards the end became very cold indeed and using the 3 coldest average broke the lowest temp record .
So that December was the hottest ever and the coldest ever !

Originally Posted by blue

The snowfall and skiing start dates are always fickle in Europe , besides winter has hardly started yet .
......nothing to worry about .

20th December....