Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes (Page 2)

CoIin
CoIin: Why don't we just get wasted? I'll bring beer. Why fuss and fight?
10 years ago Report
1
Bumpa
Bumpa: Nice thought Colin but I don't drink Mate. Cheers anyway.
10 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: I don't drink Mate either.... I drink Vodka.
10 years ago Report
1
Aura
Aura: Aw, poor Colin with all that unused beer...

I'll have one
10 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: Hey Corvin, forget the alcohol, I laid down a challenge.... Any aspect at all, I'll prove your teachers wrong
10 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Okay Bumpa.... let's turn this around... YOU present YOUR make-belief arguments, and I will debunk all of YOUR pseudo-scientific theories with known scientific fact...

But why would I really give a rat's arse?.... you can believe whatever you want... and will continue to do so, as you have already taken a position which is contrary to accepted scientific fact.

Nobody can argue against someone who makes up their own evidence and mongers it as Gospel truth.
--------

I'll restate something which is said often in these kind of matters.....
YOU are the one making a fantastic claim.... the "burden of proof" lies with YOU.
(Edited by Corwin)
10 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: That's difficult because I don't know what you've been taught.
This is a complex subject so lets start with CO2
CO2 absorbs Ir only in the 17 to 25 micron frequency. There is NO Ir at this wavelength being re radiated back into space: Journal of Optical Physics Aug 1972. Therefore CO2 levels are saturated and increasing levels can't absorb any more energy. Most likely CO2 has been saturated for at least a century but we have yet to see the predicted temp rises.

Greenland Ice Cores: careful analysis of ice cores has shown a consistant correlation between CO2 and temp peaks. Temperature peaks 850 years BEFORE CO2 peaks every time: IPCC report D.Wratt Autumn 2008.
The reason for this is the primary source of atmospheric CO2 is thawing permafrost in Arctic tundra. Anaerobic fermentation gives methane (CH4) this oxidises to CO2.

History: Previous interglacials have always followed ice ages. Time varies from 500 to 8000 years. Today's temps have still not reached those of the medieval warming period. If these interglacials were anthropogenic where did the people come from? Sure 1000 yrs ago there were quite a few but the Jurassic interglacial? Perhaps the dinosaurs had huge industry spitting out greenhouse gases.

My own thoughts are that interglacials coincide with periods of lower sunspot activity but I can't prove this yet. Astrophysics is not my speciality. It's just an idea I'm kicking around with an idea of doing an in depth study.

I'd welcome your comments so long as you don't turn to personal attacks.
10 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: So..... this all makes sense to you?

I don't even know where to begin to tell you what is wrong with all of that... so I won't bother.
It's one thing to engage in intelligent discussion, and quite another to argue science with somebody who obviously hasn't a clue of what the word even means... or worse, somebody who has educated themselves in nonsense.

Go write your book... I'm sure there are people who will buy it.
And I'm really not attempting to throw insults at you or attack you personally, but this is a public forum... you throw nonsense out there, don't be shocked when people scrutinize your beliefs... I'm just one of the majority who WON'T buy your book... among the somewhat educated people who wouldn't get past page #1, and would face-palm ourselves hard enough to leave a bruise.

I'm perfectly happy for you if you want to live in your little world of fairies and dragons... but don't expect the majority of people to follow you into this world of yours... I'm also perfectly happy accepting the harsh truth.

I would prefer the harsh truth over any form of "glossed-over" reality.
------

Seek your arguments elsewhere... we obviously received very different educations, and they seem to be incompatible to foster any productive discussion.
10 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: I was prepared to have a reasonable debate with you on this one as you do seem to have a better understanding of the subject than most laymen.
I've given you references for some of my data but you prefer to keep your blinkers on and rubbish well established scientific fact.
Anthropogenic warming is not established fact, it is a theory. One which doesn't stack up against known physical facts.
So "you can't even begin to tell me what is wrong with my post" ?
I'd suggest that is because you can't as there is nothing wrong with it.
10 years ago Report
0
Metaverseguy
Metaverseguy: The Bering Strait melted away. Northern Africa used to be a giant lake full of water with walking whales and then evaporated away all before there was millions of humans around. How exactly were whales supposed to walk anyways? You're telling me a giant mass that weighs a ton had feet and it didn't collapse in on itself?

I have no problem at all with 97% of scientists being wrong, if the data and facts agree that way. After all space ships have exploded, submarines sunken, walking Mars rovers broken, computer code exploited, antibiotics proven ineffective, hurricanes unstopped, meteorites undetected, etc.

I don't get it. We dig up all this stuff from mines and then bring it to the surface, burn it, and then it's just supposed to go away? Perhaps the firey magmas from beneath are becoming the trenching infernos of our surface.
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: I gotta admit, Colin is making the most sense in this thread...If nothing else, I feel it's a mild egotistical and misanthropist approach that's creating the results we are seeing

People are naturally inclined towards believing that they are evil, or wrong, or are the cause of suffering- you need only look at the history of religion to see the strength such a belief holds- and with that in mind, I can easily see why people from all walks and shapes of life would come to the same conclusions- especially more so when they hold the same degrees and education- because what they feel is natural and they have a common bond between them.

Equally, there's two different stances of egotism that are effecting the results- on one end the spectrum, people believe humanity is a strong and powerful race, capable of altering the environment - something that I personally feel is mistaken. We do not have such a significant affect on our surroundings to alter the ENTIRE PLANETS CHEMISTRY, and believing we do, in my opinion, is simply an example of overabundant belief in the strength of us as a species, when in reality we don't even rule our own planet(Microbes overwhelmingly do)

The other end of the spectrum of egotism lies in climatologists- lets be honest people, no one gave a shit about this science 30 years ago. But now? It's a vital and important science- and I have little doubt that such a change in society would not alter both the mindset of those who are in that science, and the kind of person who would be attracted to it. It's like saying that an Alchemist would go around proving themselves wrong- no, they wouldn't. They would hold a defiant view that they were absolutely right, regardless of the facts. Alchemy only went away after decades of having no positive results, and it still would come back time to time from people believing themselves capable of doing it. I bet if I goggled "Alchemy" today, I would find numerous examples of people "proving" alchemy, and alchemists believing overwhelmingly of the power of their science.

So the fact that climatologists believe in their own science, especially when they have everything to gain from believing in it, is not truly evidence of anything.

Do I believe the world is changing? Absolutely- I believe the world is ALWAYS changing. But I do not think humanity is the cause, and even if we are, I do not think we have the ability to reverse the change(I do not think we have the ability to CAUSE the change to begin with)

And one thing that I'm not sure if anyone has addressed on this thread- if humanity develops the ability to reverse climate change, would it be a wise action to do so? I feel control to that magnitude could only bring negative results...


--
Also, am I the only one who is irked by the phrase "Climate change" versus "Global Warming"? We've gone, in a few short years, from claiming that a specific change is going to happen, to claiming that ANY change is going to happen. It's like writing a blank cheque- does it get warmer? Climate Change. Does it get cooler? Climate Change. Does it stay the same? Still Climate Change.

It's like a prophet that retains the right to claim that, if they say the name "Pam" has significance to a crowd, and no one responds to it, they may be talking about "Map"(Pam backwards), and thus anyone thinking of travel or having traveled in the past is what they were thinking about, and their predictions were still accurate.

People on here have claimed there have been 4,000 papers in 20 years have to do with this topic- how many are on climate change? How many are specifically on "global warming", but altered to suit our current theory and sound like a better stat?

--

10 years ago Report
1
Bumpa
Bumpa: Well, I am disappointed.Logged on hoping Corvin could convince me but he's just the same as other pro CO2 adherants. Quick to criticise but very slow to come up with some actual science to back his views.
Python, I can understand your scepticism about walking whales but consider this... Millions of years ago the whale ancestor need not have weighed many tons, it could have been quite a small creature. Don't know, wasn't there although my kids are sure I probably was.
After all the ancestor of modern horses was a tiny creature named equus and weighed in at a whopping 5 kg. The elephants closest living relative is the African rock hirax the size and weight of a rabbit.
Strange things have happened over the years of earth's existence. Now we're doing a fine job of f..king it all up.
10 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: Love the Penn and Teller vid Lipton. I expected to see a scientist talking about this but instead its an entertainer. Some might suggest he should stick to entertaining but he's just so damn funny!
The pro CO2 lobby have pushed their agenda with clever marketing in order to make heaps of money... Exactly how Al Gore became so rich. So why shouldn't we use an entertainer to present some common sense in this debate.
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: The Magicians Penn and Teller have taken up the mantle of James Randi(a Magician who is an editor of "Skeptic" Magazine and a hogwash debunker) and Houdini (a Magician who spent many years of his life debunking fortune-tellers)

You should look into their program- they talk about a great deal of topics and the bullshit behind them

(Incase you were wondering, they made it clear on their first episode that they swear alot because if you call someone a scam-artist, you're liable, but if you call someone an asshole, you're in the clear.....Also the nudity is in the show cause...well, when in rome...)
10 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: I have no idea who James Randi is and we don't often get Penn n Teller shows here. I'm sure none of them fully understand the physics involved but they seem to recognise bullshit when they see it. Shame the rest of the world can't see it also.
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Unfortunately, Bullshit got cancelled some years ago after 8 seasons- but that's nearly 90 episodes to choose from- many of them are available on Youtube or can be accessed through....other means online.....

They have several good episodes- from alternative medicine and Aliens, to the water bottle industry, animal rights activists, circumcision,the endangered species act, reparations, handicap parking, lawns, and even recycling(they actually make some really good points on how recycling harms the environment)
10 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: Interesting, gonna look into that.
We've debated before Lipton so you probably realise I have an opinion on most things
Not saying I'm opinionated, just that I think a lot.
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Well, I've found this show helped me expand my way of thinking.....changed my thoughts on alot of subjects(especially recycling....I always assume that was a flawless subject....)
10 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: appeal to consensus and appeal to authority are logical fallacies, thats why you can disagree with a scientific concesus-i t is invalid reasoning.
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Well, to be fair, it's only invalid reasoning if your argument is it is valid for being popular...
10 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: which it was, in the initial post
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Then yes, that is invalid reasoning...
10 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: the human impact on the increase in oceanic acidity is a much bigger factor in the c02 cycle than the actual air pollution, itself.
10 years ago Report
0
Bumpa
Bumpa: Yes Disaporia, the Pacific pH has already dropped by 0.1 which is quite significant. It's affecting coral reefs in the west. This could also be due to shifting ocean currents also though, Warmer, more acidic water can contain less oxygen to support life.
10 years ago Report
0
Serabi
Serabi:

I still think methane will have the greatest impact on our climate. It is leaking out everywhere where the permafrost is melting.

Arctic methane release costly
2013-07-24 17:13


London - A release of methane in the Arctic could speed the melting of sea ice and climate change with a cost to the global economy of up to $60 trillion over coming decades, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge and Erasmus University in the Netherlands used economic modelling to calculate the consequences of a release of a 50-gigaton reservoir of methane from thawing permafrost under the East Siberian Sea.

They examined a scenario in which there is a release of methane over a decade as global temperatures rise at their current pace.

They also looked at lower and slower releases, yet all produced "steep" economic costs stemming from physical changes to the Arctic.

"The global impact of a warming Arctic is an economic time-bomb," said Gail Whiteman, an author of the report and professor of sustainability, management and climate change at the Rotterdam School of Management, part of Erasmus University.

"In the absence of climate-change mitigation measures, the model calculates that it would increase mean global climate impacts by $60 trillion," said Chris Hope, a reader in policy modelling at the Cambridge Judge Business School, part of the University of Cambridge.

That approaches the value of the global economy, which was around $70 trillion last year.

The costs could be even greater if other factors such as ocean acidification were included, the study said, or reduced to some $37 trillion if action is taken to lower emissions.

As much as 80% of the costs would likely be borne by developing countries experiencing more extreme weather, flooding, droughts and poorer health as the Arctic melt affects the global climate, the paper said.

Devastating climate effects

Methane is a greenhouse gas usually trapped as methane hydrate in sediment beneath the seabed. As temperatures rise, the hydrate breaks down and methane is released from the seabed, mostly dissolving into the seawater.

But if trapped methane were to break the sea surface and escape into the atmosphere, it could "speed up sea-ice retreat, reduce the reflection of solar energy and accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet," the study said.

It said that could bring forward the date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C by between 15 and 35 years - to 2035 if no action is taken to curb emissions and to 2040 if enough action is taken to have a 50% chance of keeping the rise below 2°C.

Scientists have said the rise in global average temperatures this century needs to stay below 2°C to prevent devastating climate effects such as crop failure and melting glaciers.

However, the International Energy Agency warned last month that the world is on course for a rise of 3.6 to 5.3°C citing record high global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions last year.

The Arctic has oil and gas reserves which Lloyd's of London has estimated could draw investment of up to $100bn within a decade. Environmentalists warn Arctic drilling is too risky and could have devastating consequences for the region.


- Reuters

10 years ago Report
0