Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by Ozcol

Can any of you explain to me where all the ice went after the well documented Ice Age , maybe just maybe the earth warmed up a few degrees and melted it all , if you have a tree hugging idea as to why the ice disappeared apart from a global warming event I would be pleased to hear it.

Here you go, Lad. Time to go out an play.

During the last ice age (above) sea level was at least 394 feet (120 m) lower than it is today (below), exposing much more area on the continents.
Many changes took place as sea level rose, among them the disappearance of the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska, the appearance of Britain and the islands of Southeast Asia, and the filling of the Hudson Bay. Another good image can be found here.

Image credit: National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) at NOAA.

Sea Level During Last Ice Age

Even China is planning a massive move away from cheap fossil fuels. Are they part of the Gore conspiracy?

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Historical evidence is the foundation of climate science. Without knowledge of the past including the planets glacial and interglacial periods how could long term trends be identified. How could known evidenced forcing agents be accounted for.

And all the evidence shows this shit has been happening long before we humans even decided that if we stepped down from the trees and lived on the ground it would be further to fall, so might as well do it anyway.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Milankovitch Cycles

Something humans can't control.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

The solar activity cycle

Something humans can't control.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Volcanic emissions

Something humans can't control.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Concentration of greenhouse gases

One pathetic thing we can potentially control.

Originally Posted by 'Meatloaf"

Three outa four ain't bad. (Unless you're humanity vs climate history)

You don't have to be a genius to see that we're fucked anyway. Forget science, the maths obviously says that we'll gonna lose. The world's climate has always, and will always have mood swings and if it's PMS time then there's fuck all we can do about it.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

That inconvenient truth may not sit well with your political or ideological outlook

Nothing to do with ideologies or politics, it's just common sense. Shit happens, accept it, move on.

^damn you for talking common sense!

Originally Posted by Plan B

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Concentration of greenhouse gases

One pathetic thing we can potentially control.

Pathetic?

Potentially?

Such reasoned and well explained arguments.

Originally Posted by Plan B

You don't have to be a genius to see that we're fucked anyway.

Fatalism.

Unacceptable.

Well I guess it did have to happen. the governor of aslaska decides that global warming is true and an imminent risk to alaskans. Unfortunately being a right wing american, he's come up with the usual solution... whats needed apparently is more oil


Alaska Governor: 'Meet climate costs by drilling'

Alaska mulls extra oil drilling to cope with climate change

“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”



Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.

Related: Scientist who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers

Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”

During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”

Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.

By Freemon Dyson

RPeter,

How old do you believe the earth to be?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

RPeter,

How old do you believe the earth to be?

What does what I believe have to do with the writings of Freeman Dyson, trying to discredit my beliefs does not discredit Freeman Dyson.

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

Powerful GHG methane is bubbling out of Pacific Ocean



A large number of bubbling plumes are cropping up in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, and researchers believe that it is methane. As waters warm, methane is being released from the ocean floors. This adds to the already huge amounts of methane being released by human activity

This discovery follows research last year that points to a huge increase in methane plumes off the East Coast. Given that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, this could spell trouble for a planet many already believe is warming.
Powerful greenhouse gas methane is bubbling out of Pacific Ocean


I wouldn't take this too seriously until further study, but it is worrying. If the frozen methane under sea beds and permafrost start going it's pretty much sayonara suckers.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Originally Posted by Plan B

Historical evidence is an inconvenient truth.

Historical evidence is the foundation of climate science. Without knowledge of the past including the planets glacial and interglacial periods how could long term trends be identified. How could known evidenced forcing agents be accounted for.

Here are the major forcing agents that influence the planet into glacial and interglacial periods:

Milankovitch Cycles, both 21,000 year and 41,000 year periodicity that sometimes occur at the same time in an approximately 100,000 year cycle. We are currently on the downward side of a peak warm period of a 21,000 year cycle with around 2,000 years till a minor glacial period. The planet should be cooling, but it isn't.

The solar activity cycle, has been at a lower output for the last two 11 year cycles but that hasn't stopped the increase in global temperature. Recent research has shown that barring an event like the Maunder Minimum where the Sun goes into a lower energy output for an extended period of time the Sun's fluctuations in output are minor. (Maunder Minimum went for 76 years)

Volcanic emissions, cause cooling of the atmosphere for short periods of time of only several years. Protracted periods of eruptions have altered the climate in the past and caused or contributed to mass extinction events. Volcanic activity on this scale has not been seen by human eyes, or hominid eyes for that matter.

Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. High concentrations increase the greenhouse effect and raise the surface temperature, low concentrations reduce the effect and lower surface temperature. Some natural events in the very distant past have caused a pronounced greenhouse effect.

Right now, it's not the Earth's position in the Milankovitch cycles, nor is it the Sun, nor volcanic activity or lack thereof, nor is it naturally occurring greenhouse gases. It's human generated greenhouse gases that are causing a rate of increased warming that most likely will cause long term climate change and no end of trouble for billions of people.

That inconvenient truth may not sit well with your political or ideological outlook but unfortunately for you facts don't give a fetid pair of dingoes kidneys what you believe. The longer we delay mitigation the more intrusive invasive and restrictive the mitigation methods will have to be. You think a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme is the rise of fascist world government dominance, just wait another 50 years and it will be enforced at the end of a gun instead of by treaties and legislation.

Flat temps for 18 years now. The IPCC has a 0% record with forecasts

Co2 only has a very minor warming effect.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

Most of the IPCC hacks are poorly qualified with a 0% forecast record.

An economist would he sacked after 2 years of dud forecasts. IPCC has been wrong 18 years in a row.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

1 there is no consensus
2 science is about facts not opinions
3 the ipcc has a 0% record with their models

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

1 there is no consensus
2 science is about facts not opinions
3 the ipcc has a 0% record with their models

You should get up to date. I recommend that you read the past 2822 posts so you can catch up on the facts about climate change and their sources that have been posted. They're quite educational.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

1 there is no consensus
2 science is about facts not opinions
3 the ipcc has a 0% record with their models

You should get up to date. I recommend that you read the past 2822 posts so you can catch up on the facts about climate change and their sources that have been posted. They're quite educational.

Why?
Ive read a 100 scientific reports on the subject.

You obviously are lagging behind.