SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
SCW-Greg
Active Member
Well, my comment was directed at the original bashing tone that was coming out at the start of this thread, that has since been edited/toned down. Discussing with calm is always good though.
I don't think the jury has settled the issue yet - still some debate going back and forth... As to whether its man caused, partial mix, or if its the normal ebb and flow of earth cycles (and man is unable to influence it). But what I do know, is that we can act prudently when and where we can.
I don't think the jury has settled the issue yet - still some debate going back and forth... As to whether its man caused, partial mix, or if its the normal ebb and flow of earth cycles (and man is unable to influence it). But what I do know, is that we can act prudently when and where we can.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Ok. IMHO though, it seems the jury – in this case the IPCC in 2007 for example – was about as settled as one can reasonably expect given the complexity of this issue (see my original post in this thread (#8) here: Global Warming Discussion). There just does not seem to be any viable alternative explanation. And now we have begun to see the effects (!)
For example:
That’s nine to ten inches in the last 100 years. A pretty short time frame in comparison…
And here are a few other credible sources IMHO (The one with video includes transcript):
James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change | Video on TED.com
Climate change is here and worse than we thought - The Washington Post
Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Last edited:
All the IPCC predictions are based on models that can't even replicate accurately the climate of the last 20 years.
They ignore water vapor because they are not sure if its a plus or a minus.
And we are supposed to bank our future predictions of a hundred years from now and trillions of dollars on that?
Time to get real and not taken.
Climate change happened before Homo sapiens and will continue after them. Greenland was without ice before cars and glaciers covered most of North America and Europe. Climate change is a constant on earth.
Who are we to determine that TODAY'S climate is the most ideal climate?
They ignore water vapor because they are not sure if its a plus or a minus.
And we are supposed to bank our future predictions of a hundred years from now and trillions of dollars on that?
Time to get real and not taken.
Climate change happened before Homo sapiens and will continue after them. Greenland was without ice before cars and glaciers covered most of North America and Europe. Climate change is a constant on earth.
Who are we to determine that TODAY'S climate is the most ideal climate?
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Since I’m only a layman in this field, and countering these arguments feels like to much work at the moment – though I’m sure it can be done – someone else will have to pitch in here if those counterarguments are going to appear in this thread...
Kaviball,
I agree with you in part, in that I don't trust computer modeling. I've done computer modeling in the past - on something not nearly as complex as the climate - and you have to be very careful when you extrapolate beyond what you can empirically validate.
Unfortunately modeling is just a tiny part of the evidence. The basic physics of the situation were worked out in 1890, and by now are pretty well understood. CO2 does trap heat, as does methane.
Saying the amount of CO2 emitted is small compared to natural cycles misses the point - the imbalance accumulates over time and we can directly measure that it is indeed increasing.
You are correct that the Earth's climate varies over time. It is largely driven by variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity. Unfortunately the current warming trend is not explained by that.
The Earth will survive the changes; the question is whether we will. It's apparent that the current conditions are a pretty ideal climate for us humans, in that large areas of the world are habitable and suitable to agriculture. It would be wise for our own good not to push it away from that state.
I agree with you in part, in that I don't trust computer modeling. I've done computer modeling in the past - on something not nearly as complex as the climate - and you have to be very careful when you extrapolate beyond what you can empirically validate.
Unfortunately modeling is just a tiny part of the evidence. The basic physics of the situation were worked out in 1890, and by now are pretty well understood. CO2 does trap heat, as does methane.
Saying the amount of CO2 emitted is small compared to natural cycles misses the point - the imbalance accumulates over time and we can directly measure that it is indeed increasing.
You are correct that the Earth's climate varies over time. It is largely driven by variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity. Unfortunately the current warming trend is not explained by that.
The Earth will survive the changes; the question is whether we will. It's apparent that the current conditions are a pretty ideal climate for us humans, in that large areas of the world are habitable and suitable to agriculture. It would be wise for our own good not to push it away from that state.
I actually spent the time reading the IPCC report.
The conclusion is that even IF we follow the recommendations, at best we can hope to lower the temperature by 1 degree Celsius in 100 years.
Now let that sink in. We can spend trillions of Dollars on Carbon sequestering and CO2 emissions and at BEST we can hope to reduce the temperature increase by one degree Celsius 100 years from now.
And of course all of that is based on predictions of climate models that can't even replicate the last 20 years of real climate, yet I am supposed to trust it to predict the climate 100 years from now.
Mmmhhh.
That brings me back to my original point: what do we really understand of what earth "average" temperature is when indeed it changes every single day and who decides what the "best" average earth temperature is in the first place?
Truth is, the warmer it is, the more places are habitable and suitable for agriculture.
20,000 years ago Europe was covered in ice. Not much agriculture going on at that time.
IMHO, we can other spend futile time and money on fighting the natural cycles of our planet, or we can adapt to the changes.
Relying on inexact science and corrupt computer models is a recipe for disaster. In the mean time, Al Gore has become a multi millionaire peddling his fraud ( and selling his station to Al Jazeera...
)
Zapped
Model S - PURE EV
The debate over climate change is mostly manufactured - Do You Accept the Science of Climate Change? [Excerpt]: Scientific American
A 1 degree difference in global temperature is actually pretty significant, considering that the difference between ice age and interglacial temperatures is only 6 degrees.
A 1 degree difference in global temperature is actually pretty significant, considering that the difference between ice age and interglacial temperatures is only 6 degrees.
To this concern I only would like to say that, as I also explained to Bonnie in a PM, I didn't mean to have a bashing tone. I simply reported some data. If you got the impression that I had a bashing tone maybe it's due to my bad English.
I heard the conference of James Hansen. I think that he gave all the necessary information on this matter. I would like to point out that James Hansen states that the upper side of the sea is getting warmer and warmer. As it is very well known this phenomenum causes hurricanes.
Last edited:
dhrivnak
Active Member
When you ask who are we to determine that Today's climate is most ideal, make sure you understand the ramifications. As the world heats up just a couple of degrees sea levels rise by both thermal expansion and glacier melting. And while we have only seen a modest 8" of sea level rise we are on track for 3' of rise by 2100. We saw the devastation by huricane Sandy. From all I know it would have been much worse with 3 more feet of water. Millions live on or near the coasts and it will be VERY expensive to build dikes around all areas that need it. So yes if you are a farmer in Siberia or Canada or even North Dakota then yes Global warming will bring benifits. But if you live near a coast or in a warmer climate like Australia (who reciently saw a country AVERAGE of more than 114 degrees) then global warming will bring about huge challenges and costs.
Through-out most of Earth's history Florida was underwater as sea levels were some 100' higher. That is not a change I want to see.
For those that are curious about, or sceptical of man's contribution to climate change, I would highly recommend this video.
Climate Change: Lines of Evidence - YouTube
It does an excellent job of laying out the logic behind, and the evidence for man made climate change.
It also, hopefully will give some people a better understanding of what the science actually concludes, so if they disagree, they can argue against what the science actually says rather than argue against what Rush Limbaugh thinks it says
Climate Change: Lines of Evidence - YouTube
It does an excellent job of laying out the logic behind, and the evidence for man made climate change.
It also, hopefully will give some people a better understanding of what the science actually concludes, so if they disagree, they can argue against what the science actually says rather than argue against what Rush Limbaugh thinks it says
Again, you are basing your assumptions on a known flawed climate model software.
Sea levels haven't risen near as much as predicted in early 2000, late nineties. Yet, the same models are used to predict what things will be like 100 years from now.
We can't stop climate. We can't stop the climate doing from what it has been doing for billion of years. We are experiencing natural heating and cooling cycles.
We can either make futile attempts to "stop" the climate from changing and waste trillions and trillions of dollars doing so, or we start thinking about how we will adapt.
For starters, lets stop wasting billions of dollars rebuilding places that are already below seal level. That doesn't make a lot of sense now, does it?
I recently saw a paper on this, showing that one of the IPCC's most aggressive scenarios predicted a sea level rise over the 1993-2011 time frame of 2.0mm per year. The measurements of the actual sea level rise has been 3.2mm +- 0.5mm per year. So if anything, it appears they underestimated the sea level rise over that time.
I would highly recommend you check out the video I linked above.
Discussion of above paper on IPCC predictions. Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
Last edited:
dflye
S Sig Perf 414, VIN 814
While the nature of the climate change cycle in general may be out of our control, do we really need to be pouring gas on the fire if we can avoid it?
If we can avoid accelerating some upcoming climate change by making a few changes to our lifestyles, that gives our species time to attempt to address various global issues that are only making things worse every day.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The sea level rise model is a orthogonal to the climate change model and every number comes with a certainty level. The 2100 sea level prediction comes with a 50% certainty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
First of all, we aren't trying to stop the climate, we are trying to stop our contribution to the climate. Yes, we are experiencing natural heating and cooling cycles, but our activities also contribute to those cycles in measurable ways. We are 90% certain the current warming is caused by human produced greenhouse gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The 2007 IPCC report predicted 1.1 to 2.9°C (2 to 5.2°F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4°C (4.3 to 11.5°F) for their highest emissions scenario for 2100. And the ranges for each scenario reflect the uncertainties like the water vapor feedback you mentioned. So by adjusting our emissions, we can effect a 1.3°C to 3.5°C change in global surface temperatures depending on what sensitivity model you subscribe to.
It's not an either or scenario. First of all, the scientific community already has clear agreement that we ARE affecting the climate with our activities. The variance is in the magnitude (as mentioned above). The suggestions for change involves reductions in GHG emissions AND adaptation to the effects. Either one alone is likely not going to be enough.
The recent report on the World Economic Forum gives perspectives to the numbers:
Each large hurricane cost us $50+ billion each in damages in the US alone, not to mention other economic/human costs (I'm not tying the hurricanes directly to climate change, but this is just a example of how much disasters can cost). Worldwide annual spending on infrastructure is about $5 trillion per year in a "business as usual" case. Current state spending is about $90 billion annually on climate change related initiatives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/21/us-davos-climate-idUSBRE90K0QK20130121
And the thing is that initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases are tied directly with reducing other air-borne pollution (like the smog for example), sustainability (renewable energy/products), higher efficiency (necessary to maintaining the quality of life for a growing population). Those are all things that have no "harm" except costing us money (and in general it's money well spent).
Last edited:
CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is a part of a biogeochemical cycle that under equilibrium. I broke this equilibrium every time we burn fossil fuel because that carbon was trap a long time ago to keep this equilibrium. That excess carbon is now accumulating in the atmosphere (each molecule stays 100-200 yrs), that why we when from 278ppm of C0[SUB]2[/SUB] to 395ppm atmospheric concentration. The problem is not that temperature are rising, the problem is the speed of the rise. Earth lives on geologic time scale that let organism time to adapt to environmental change. You should not be able in the time of your life to detect any change in climate, its to short. Its maybe hard to see, but we depend on all other form of life on earth and its going be are form then to adapt to this very very quick climate change as this article said…
Virus study may signal trouble for animal populations facing climate change
Here's a different way of thinking about this:
Collectively for the past century or so, we have been engaged in a giant experiment that burning large quantities of fossil fuels will have no cumulative adverse effect on the earth's climate. The preponderance of the evidence now rejects that hypothesis. So, if we are to continue this experiment unchecked, doesn't the burden of proof now switch to those who would take no meaningful actions to reduce carbon emissions?
Even if you believe that the observable climate change is not caused by humans, do you also reject the idea that our actions can counterbalance those changes to some degree?
Collectively for the past century or so, we have been engaged in a giant experiment that burning large quantities of fossil fuels will have no cumulative adverse effect on the earth's climate. The preponderance of the evidence now rejects that hypothesis. So, if we are to continue this experiment unchecked, doesn't the burden of proof now switch to those who would take no meaningful actions to reduce carbon emissions?
Even if you believe that the observable climate change is not caused by humans, do you also reject the idea that our actions can counterbalance those changes to some degree?
Similar threads
