Are human activities influencing the climate?

dense

RayM wrote: »

I don't believe human activities are influencing the climate. 97% of the world's climate scientists are wrong and I, a man on the internet, am right.

Could be. You're certainly not following the herd.

The number of scientific papers published doubting the conventional group think is continuing to increase.


"During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media."

http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/03/already-285-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.kRVeI9oL.8W6y2nMw.dpbs


MIT atmospheric science professor Richard Lindzen suggests that many claims regarding climate change are exaggerated and unnecessarily alarmist.

http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/

I'd tend to agree with him, and this:


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Junkyard Tom

Gbear wrote: »

Did you know that 73% of plane crashes are caused by skeptics asking whether or not planes can really fly?

Over 90% of flights get off the ground from passengers of faith praying to God and willing them into the air.

Samaris

dense, have you ever tried getting a cup of water, a couple of drops of acid and some litmus paper? Small volumes can actually have quite a large effect. Do you know what happens if you eat too much salt - or arsenic ("too much" being quite a small amount by body mass). That is the comparison you are making with that rather ridiculous argument of "it's only a tiny bit compared to the mass of the atmosphere" And you know, all of those are naturally occurring compounds in your body/the atmosphere anyway, so they can't be bad, right?

And by the way, "let's change the composition of the atmosphere", that's not a good idea.

Also, you have managed to pretty much quote every large climate denialist so far, so..well done. Richard Lindzen was confirmed to be funded by Peabody, the world’s biggest private sector publicly traded coal company, who are unusually denialist even for a fossil fuel company (yes, even the fossil fuel industries reluctantly agree now, including having had their own studies done). Peabody had to file for bankruptcy in April last year and as part of that, had to reveal who it was donating to.

I kinda get at this point that this is pointless; you have your opinion and no amount of evidence, information or basic physics will sway you. I guess I'm eternally optimistic is all.

dense

Samaris wrote: »

dense, have you ever tried getting a cup of water, a couple of drops of acid and some litmus paper? Small volumes can actually have quite a large effect. Do you know what happens if you eat too much salt - or arsenic ("too much" being quite a small amount by body mass). That is the comparison you are making with that rather ridiculous argument of "it's only a tiny bit compared to the mass of the atmosphere" And you know, all of those are naturally occurring compounds in your body/the atmosphere anyway, so they can't be bad, right?

And by the way, "let's change the composition of the atmosphere", that's not a good idea.

Also, you have managed to pretty much quote every large climate denialist so far, so..well done. Richard Lindzen was confirmed to be funded by Peabody, the world’s biggest private sector publicly traded coal company, who are unusually denialist even for a fossil fuel company (yes, even the fossil fuel industries reluctantly agree now, including having had their own studies done). Peabody had to file for bankruptcy in April last year and as part of that, had to reveal who it was donating to.

I kinda get at this point that this is pointless; you have your opinion and no amount of evidence, information or basic physics will sway you. I guess I'm eternally optimistic is all.

You have said that you are a scientist, albeit unpublished.

I'm finding the first part of that admission hard to believe if you're seriously saying that it hadn't occurred to you that energy companies such as Peabody would seek scientific advice research or opinions and if they do, they might pay for it.

The "alarmists" are now "alarmed" that energy companies might employ scientists.

I presume that you get paid for being a scientist, but he shouldn't. Is that right?

Your Daily Mail line of thinking, of, "Shame on dirty coal company found funding dirty scientist" AFTER it went bankrupt is a little misleading isn't it?

He publicly testified a year before that on Peabody's behalf.
Do you believe that he should have done it free gratis, or incognito?

You say he was paid.
How much was he paid? Ten dollars? Twenty million? Link please.

Tell us. And tell us why you think it matters.

Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden.

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society.

He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.

He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Lindzen is an ISI highly cited researcher,[81] and his biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science.

He's entitled to his opinion but shouldn't be paid for it or allowed to discuss it in public unless it concurs with yours, that's it in a nutshell isn't it Samaris?

Samaris

Jays, heap the fury high there, dense. Anyone would think you were wound up about it all.


Peabody has been known for a while as being unusually anti-climate change science, even for a fossil fuel industry. And yes, it's as well to know who is funding people who come out with suspiciously unlikely interpretations of the information we have. It is particularly valuable to know when said industries have been funding absolute bull**** for years.

Lindzen is a meteorologist and likely a good one, since he's MIT chair of meteorology, but he is not an expert in long-term climate shift. He works within climates, not between climates. He works off the immediate and regular patterns in his work. This is fine and dandy and a very useful profession, but it is not the profession he is claiming suspiciously contrarian notions about. Mind you, he's also agreed that climate change is happening and that the world is getting warmer, just in his opinion, the conclusions of what the effects of this are incorrect. So be cautious using him to disprove climate change.

He also testified against (oddly enough, unpaid!) climatologists for Peabody where Peabody's argument was the frankly ludicrous;

"Peabody asserted that significant climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, it is not due to anthropogenic causes. Furthermore, Peabody insisted that any current warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial. Based on its position on climate change, Peabody maintained that the externality value of CO2 would most accurately be set at or below zero."
https://mn.gov/oah/assets/2500-31888-environmental-socioeconomic-costs-carbon-report_tcm19-222628.pdf

It's not happening.
If it is happening, it's not us.
If it is happening and whether or not it's down to us, it's a good thing.
Therefore, we should not have to pay carbon tax and should probably even get a rebate.

Yeah. I don't have a great deal of time for Richard Lindzen. Oh, they lost the case, btw.

Lindzen also recommends that Trump defund climate science 90-95%. I'm sure you would agree, but it would be an intensely stupid thing to do. Also comes across a bit sulky because his notions are generally ignored for being factually dubious and creative in interpretation.

As mentioned before, Lindzen does not actually disagree with anthropogenic climate change. He actually agrees* that the earth is warming, but he disagrees as to the impacts. He just shills for industries regarding it**. His model for under 1C rise in temperatures above IR levels is already incorrect. He doesn't like models, but not liking a new methodology is not really an excuse for dismissing it - and unlike "layperson" commentators, he has no excuse of ignorance to explain it. Models have rendered the climates of the past 100 years quite accurately, btw.

Short form - if the vast majority with expertise and interest in the topic lean generally to one conclusion, choosing the opinion of a contrarian (he's also apparently argued that the link between smoking and lung cancer is weak, so ...yeah, have fun with that one, I'm sure you'll be taking up smoking any moment now) against all of the current evidence is a bit daft, especially if you have no experience in the field yourself. Blunt, I know, but it's true. However, I am unlikely to convince you of that, that's your business. You listen to Lindzen if you want, you'll hear everything you want to hear, although his more accurate bits may upset you badly. I will go with the evidence, my own research, the vast majority of those that study it, physics and chemistry and an understanding of how changes in one parameter affects others.


*has agreed anyway. He seems to be getting more and more contrary with age though.
**Including Exxon, OPEC and Peabody so far. Also associated with, let me say again, the fecking Heartland Institute who are absolutely a pack of chancers.

Samaris

Actually, dense, did you read my explanation of natural and anthropogenic influences on climate - I think it's on the last page. Did you actually disagree with any of it and if so, what? What is it about the conclusions that you object to?

I have presented you with evidence, facts and claims - what are your issues with them? Don't argue a scientific point with wild accusations, what is it about the information you object to?

XsApollo

The world used to be flat, people thought if you kept going you would fall off.
The Atom was the smallest thing in the world until they opened it up.
That hole in the ozone layer is closing.

Is climate change happening? Yes
Would it be happening if we wernt here?
I think it would.
I think the earth will go through fazes of heating up and cooling down.
Not being helped by us but I think it would be happening anyway.

rossie1977

Human activity is dumping an extra 40 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year. Just 90 companies are responsible for roughly 2/3 of that https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

Sea levels rose 2.6 inches between 1993 and 2004..if that rate continues vast quantities of prime real estate in places like lower Manhattan, central London, Miami, Rio, Venice will be uninhabitable by the end of the century.

Samaris

XsApollo wrote: »

The world used to be flat, people thought if you kept going you would fall off.
The Atom was the smallest thing in the world until they opened it up.
That hole in the ozone layer is closing.

Is climate change happening? Yes
Would it be happening if we wernt here?
I think it would.
I think the earth will go through fazes of heating up and cooling down.
Not being helped by us but I think it would be happening anyway.

Yep and yep, just not in the same way right now.

The warming and cooling is driven by Milankovitch cycles predominantly (although with effects modified by earth's own continental set-up, the masses of water, the shape of the planet itself, and solar output). The three cycles have a combined periodicity of about 100,000 years. The last peak was the Holocene, about 8-10,000 years ago (at perihelion, so strongest climate forcing effects in motion). The overall effect of the cycles tend to give about 80-90% cooling period (ice ages) and 10-20% warm periods (interglacials). Going by the usual data and the pattern throughout the last million years, we should be in a general cooling period, although interglacials can stick around longer (the 10-20%).

One big hint is that rising CO2 levels tended to -follow- warming; an impact of the change of heat received from the sun. Warming temperatures increase the greenhouse effect (positive feedback cycle starts from this point, rather than from a more natural ~maximum receipt of solar energy), oceans start releasing CO2, snow melt increases the amount of heat absorbed, etcetera.

In the case of what we're seeing now, CO2 is -preceding- warming (CO2 plus others, but CO2 is as good a marker to use as any). Basically, we're jumping from a cooling climate to having CO2 levels equivalent to what happens when the earth around its perihelion state. The same feedback loops hold true though.

wakka12

I think the exact opposite. Im surprised by just how many resources humans use just to live day to day. Think about how much food a restaurant uses daily to feed a few hundred people?Tonnes and tonnes ,just one restaurant on one street out of the many towns in ireland and then all of europe and the whole world
Think about the billions of cars every single persons uses several times per day to go to work and school, how many fumes come out of them
The literal billions of animals we kill daily just to fill ourselves for a day?
Think about the hundreds of garments of clothing you have in your wardrobe and you are one out of 7 billion people?
All the gas needed to heat your home, one of the billions of homes on earth?
Earth is not that big.We are killing it quickly and I'm surprised its not dying even quicker considering how much each of us consume daily

It is so naive to think we are not causing a lot of damage

dense

Samaris wrote: »

Jays, heap the fury high there, dense. Anyone would think you were wound up about it all.


Peabody has been known for a while as being unusually anti-climate change science, even for a fossil fuel industry. And yes, it's as well to know who is funding people who come out with suspiciously unlikely interpretations of the information we have. It is particularly valuable to know when said industries have been funding absolute bull**** for years.

Lindzen is a meteorologist and likely a good one, since he's MIT chair of meteorology, but he is not an expert in long-term climate shift. He works within climates, not between climates. He works off the immediate and regular patterns in his work. This is fine and dandy and a very useful profession, but it is not the profession he is claiming suspiciously contrarian notions about. Mind you, he's also agreed that climate change is happening and that the world is getting warmer, just in his opinion, the conclusions of what the effects of this are incorrect. So be cautious using him to disprove climate change.

He also testified against (oddly enough, unpaid!) climatologists for Peabody where Peabody's argument was the frankly ludicrous;

"Peabody asserted that significant climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, it is not due to anthropogenic causes. Furthermore, Peabody insisted that any current warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial. Based on its position on climate change, Peabody maintained that the externality value of CO2 would most accurately be set at or below zero."
https://mn.gov/oah/assets/2500-31888-environmental-socioeconomic-costs-carbon-report_tcm19-222628.pdf

It's not happening.
If it is happening, it's not us.
If it is happening and whether or not it's down to us, it's a good thing.
Therefore, we should not have to pay carbon tax and should probably even get a rebate.

Yeah. I don't have a great deal of time for Richard Lindzen. Oh, they lost the case, btw.

Lindzen also recommends that Trump defund climate science 90-95%. I'm sure you would agree, but it would be an intensely stupid thing to do. Also comes across a bit sulky because his notions are generally ignored for being factually dubious and creative in interpretation.

As mentioned before, Lindzen does not actually disagree with anthropogenic climate change. He actually agrees* that the earth is warming, but he disagrees as to the impacts. He just shills for industries regarding it**. His model for under 1C rise in temperatures above IR levels is already incorrect. He doesn't like models, but not liking a new methodology is not really an excuse for dismissing it - and unlike "layperson" commentators, he has no excuse of ignorance to explain it. Models have rendered the climates of the past 100 years quite accurately, btw.

Short form - if the vast majority with expertise and interest in the topic lean generally to one conclusion, choosing the opinion of a contrarian (he's also apparently argued that the link between smoking and lung cancer is weak, so ...yeah, have fun with that one, I'm sure you'll be taking up smoking any moment now) against all of the current evidence is a bit daft, especially if you have no experience in the field yourself. Blunt, I know, but it's true. However, I am unlikely to convince you of that, that's your business. You listen to Lindzen if you want, you'll hear everything you want to hear, although his more accurate bits may upset you badly. I will go with the evidence, my own research, the vast majority of those that study it, physics and chemistry and an understanding of how changes in one parameter affects others.


*has agreed anyway. He seems to be getting more and more contrary with age though.
**Including Exxon, OPEC and Peabody so far. Also associated with, let me say again, the fecking Heartland Institute who are absolutely a pack of chancers.

A lot there, not much worth reading though because none of it addresses what I asked you.

We all agree that the climate is changing, does change and will change.

We disagree on the scale of anthropological responsibility.

You blame all of it on anthropological input if I'm following you. I am skeptical of that and skeptical of the doomsday predictions espoused in this thread.

What you don't seem to want to discuss is whether there are alternative reasons for climate changing, why you think the change is inevitably bad, whether an elimination of fossil fuel use will guarantee anything.

A question, why are you wedded to the doomsday anthropological theory altering the climate and dismissive of other alternatives, nature and less doomsday?

We have seen a supposed 0.8 of a degree increase in temperature with a 42% increase of fossil fuel use, so (even though you've cast doubt on the previously acceptable scientific methods employed by mistaken scientists using faulty thermometers,) what do you predict for the future in terms of increasing temperatures if co2 emissions stay as they are or increase by say, 100% (extremely unlikely IMO)?

Samaris

What I don't understand? Lol, I've given you a list of natural drivers of climate shift and you refused to engage. What do you want from me, pictures?

The current climate shift is not natural. We know it is not natural, not least because the earth should still be in a cooling phase and CO2 is preceding change rather than following it (as is the natural cycle). I have gone through various other shifts and pointed out that none of them can be impacting. I really cannot be more clear than I already have if you refuse to read what I'm saying.

Also, you asked me what the issue was with RL, I gave you a list, you cba reading it. Shrug.


You're wrong on your numbers too, btw. Keep meaning to comment on that but I have no idea where you've got them from.

Nabber

The climate change theory AGW is far too fluid, it's used for any extreme weather.

Coldest winter in memory = AWG
Warmest winter in memory = AWG
Wettest winter in memory = AWG
Driest winter in memory = AWG

Even the data they used is poorly skewed, having averages in weather is like averaging the flip of a coin (which would be easier) but equally pointless.

There is no historical evidence to suggest weather should follow averages. Our weather of direct impact of the sun, which we also know very little about.

I'm not convinced by AWG, it's arguable that Climate change will become a bigger business than the oil companies we here so much about.

When you close off open discussion and grab a moral high ground, you have to expect that you will always be challenged on your high horse, some of which will be just trolling.

Akrasia

c_man wrote: »

I have no idea what percentage of climate change is due to humans.

It's more than a hundred percent of current warming.

Why more than a hundred percent? Because if it wasn't for us, the climate would actually be cooling.

All these ignorant deniers who think 'it's the sun' don't even know that the sun is in a cooler phase at the moment

Samaris

Nabber wrote: »

The climate change theory AGW is far too fluid, it's used for any extreme weather.

Coldest winter in memory = AWG
Warmest winter in memory = AWG
Wettest winter in memory = AWG
Driest winter in memory = AWG

Even the data they used is poorly skewed, having averages in weather is like averaging the flip of a coin (which would be easier) but equally pointless.

There is no historical evidence to suggest weather should follow averages. Our weather of direct impact of the sun, which we also know very little about.

I'm not convinced by AWG, it's arguable that Climate change will become a bigger business than the oil companies we here so much about.

When you close off open discussion and grab a moral high ground, you have to expect that you will always be challenged on your high horse, some of which will be just trolling.

Thing is, the first premise in that is incorrect. Climatologists are very, very cautious about explaining any specific event as being down to climate change because we know very well that any single event can be explained by natural chance. Now, a -trend- of extreme events is more worthy of note. Obviously, you can get a newspaper going "CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSIBLE FOR IRMA", but you should take that with the same pinch of salt as used to flavour the Daily Express' average WORLD WAR THREE headlines.

Climate is the average of weather conditions. It is the expected general average and it holds pretty true under given conditions. These conditions do show variability, but we understand that pretty well too, which various drivers impact and how. Many of the lesser cycles (such as ENSO and, ofc, the seasons) take place over a year or so. Major cycles work over millenial timescales. It makes sense, tbh, because if the climate shifted regularly and rapidly, it would be very difficult for us to have evolved at all. That we -do- have averages is why we have a summer and winter and know roughly when it will be. Not to mention can control crops and feeding ourselves.

We know a lot about the impact of the sun, it is the main driver of the climate cycle after all, so we have to! Everything else pretty much just determines how much solar radiation will reach and escape from Earth's atmosphere with the possible exception of continental shift.

We do actually understand a lot of this. I don't know what you've been told (although God knows I can guess at this point), but this is not a half-baked theory. We know how atmospheric and oceanic physics work and we do understand that forcing one parameter out of alignment is enough to change the system, just as much as introducing, say, a lot of salt (naturally forming, necessary for life) to a human body will kill it.

Dr Brown

WinnyThePoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

Ha David icke

two wheels good

Not enough people - and especially the deniers - are aware that Exxon knew about the dangers of atmospheric C02 and the Climate Change decades ago. Even worse than keeping the info secret they spread misinformartion.

From "Scientific America"
"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation"

From The Guardian
"The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago"

dense

Samaris wrote: »

You're wrong on your numbers too, btw. Keep meaning to comment on that but I have no idea where you've got them from.

Well correct them then, here they are with the questions, I'm open to correction.

"We have seen a supposed 0.08% increase in temperature with a 42% increase of fossil fuel use, so (even though you've cast doubt on the previously acceptable scientific methods employed by mistaken scientists using faulty thermometers,) what do you predict for the future in terms of increasing temperatures if co2 emissions stay as they are or increase by say, 100% (extremely unlikely IMO)?"

Edit: Yes the 0.08% above should be 0.8 of a degree c.

Like to take a stab at the question?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Well correct them then, here they are with the questions, I'm open to correction.

"We have seen a supposed 0.08% increase in temperature with a 42% increase of fossil fuel use, so (even though you've cast doubt on the previously acceptable scientific methods employed by mistaken scientists using faulty thermometers,) what do you predict for the future in terms of increasing temperatures if co2 emissions stay as they are or increase by say, 100% (extremely unlikely IMO)?"

Edit: Yes the 0.08% above should be 0.8 of a degree c.

Like to take a stab at the question?

Median global temperature was 14.1 degrees on average between 1951 and 1980
In 2015, global median temperature was 15.1 degrees C

That's a huge change. An enormous amount of extra energy in the atmosphere. And that doesn't even include the fact that Oceans have been absorbing the vast majority of the extra heat. The amounts of energy are mind blowing.
We're talking about the same amount of energy as 4 Hiroshema atomic bombs going off every second.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

It's more than a hundred percent of current warming.

Why more than a hundred percent? Because if it wasn't for us, the climate would actually be cooling.

All these ignorant deniers who think 'it's the sun' don't even know that the sun is in a cooler phase at the moment

It is cooling isn't it?

"A surface temperature index is produced by the U.K. Met Office. The graph below shows the best fit trend from January 2002. It shows a cooling trend. The graph also shows the average IPCC climate model projection during the period."












Are these fake graphs?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Big difference between .08% and .8% but even still, how do you work out a 1 degree increase in average global temperatures = a .8% increase?

Median global temperature was 14.1 degrees on average between 1951 and 1980
In 2015, global median temperature was 15.1 degrees C

How do you calculate this as a .8% of a change?

Seriously????
Ask Nasa, it's their figure.
(I wrongly typed 0.08% instead of 0.8 degree earlier)

What do you think it is, a full degree, for rounding purposes?
We'll go with that if you like.
It's hardly apocalyptic.

"Based on Hansen's temperature analysis work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Earth's average global surface temperature has already risen 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880, and is now warming at a rate of more than 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade."


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/649/secrets-from-the-past-point-to-rapid-climate-change-in-the-future/


https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=0.8+degree+climate+change+Celsius+or+Fahrenheit+&oq=0.8+degree+climate+change+Celsius+or+Fahrenheit+&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3...55835.68886.0.69562.24.23.1.0.0.0.422.3159.7j13j2j0j1.23.0....0...1.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..19.5.866.otC8yH_duHk

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Seriously????
Ask Nasa, it's their figure.

"Based on Hansen's temperature analysis work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Earth's average global surface temperature has already risen 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880, and is now warming at a rate of more than 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade."


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/649/secrets-from-the-past-point-to-rapid-climate-change-in-the-future/


https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=0.8+degree+climate+change+Celsius+or+Fahrenheit+&oq=0.8+degree+climate+change+Celsius+or+Fahrenheit+&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3...55835.68886.0.69562.24.23.1.0.0.0.422.3159.7j13j2j0j1.23.0....0...1.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..19.5.866.otC8yH_duHk

I was responding to your comment before you edited it. I changed my response afterwards

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

It is cooling isn't it?

"A surface temperature index is produced by the U.K. Met Office. The graph below shows the best fit trend from January 2002. It shows a cooling trend. The graph also shows the average IPCC climate model projection during the period."












Are these fake graphs?

The so called 'friends of science' graphs use cherrypicked dates to get the result they are looking for. The best graph to use is a rolling 5 year average graph as this removes bias

NASA show very clearly why we should believe in global warming

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The so called 'friends of science' graphs use cherrypicked dates to get the result they are looking for. The best graph to use is a rolling 5 year average graph as this removes bias

Are they fake graphs or not?

You've not said.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

I was responding to your comment before you edited it. I changed my response afterwards

That's OK. You answered this question

"What do you predict for the future in terms of increasing temperatures if co2 emissions stay as they are or increase by say, 100% (extremely unlikely IMO)?"

by mentioning something about the energy required to replicate 4 nuclear bombs.

I'm looking for something a little more specific.

1 degree, 12 degrees , that kind of thing.
Stay burning as we are, ditch fossil fuels or double our burning.

Temperatures. Numbers and explanations for them. Call it guesswork.
We've had a 0.8 degree increase.

Extrapolate. There is doom ahead isn't there?

Whether you realise it or not you're coming across more certain about AGW than the IPCC.

marcus001

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Ha David icke

I thought it was Davi Dick E

Samaris

Global temperature means rose from bouncing between -0.2 and -0.4 to +0.6C*. Nearly 1C over 130 years is actually very fast. Events that require certain temperatures to kick off (say, things that happen in the spring/summer) now have less difference to make up to occur. They can now occur earlier, later or more easily in the warm season. From working with SSTA maps (sea surface temperature anomaly), I can see that vast areas of the Pacific in particular are warmer than usual, and it's in every year now.

In terms of sea level, things were holding pretty steady until somewhere between 1850 and 1900, around the point that temperatures were moving towards a global average of 0 rather than under, but CO2 was rising. Then there was an increase in how quickly sea level started to move. The average increase through the 20thC, correcting for lunar movement (which obviously regularly impacts what the sea is doing) was between 0.8mm to 3.3mm per year. According to NASA, it's sped up to 3.3mm/yr (+/-0.4). That may not seem much, but it adds up.

So that's where we stand at the moment. We can expect a continuing rise and temperature rise in response to CO2 already in the atmosphere. Where things get tricky is that we can expect an increased rate through the 21stC, but we don't know what will trigger a catastrophic collapse of icesheets. Is under a degree plus this rapid rise in sea level enough to? We can already see damage to it - significant damage to some ice shelves, if you were following the Larsen saga. Is it enough, even if we stabilised things now? That's what we're not sure of. It is not a linear relationship. At some point, weakened by warmer water and melt on top, iceberg shelves will reach a tipping point and collapse, opening up weaker areas behind (as demonstrated by Larsen C earlier this year) - that is where sea level could start going up in jumps, once melt is eating away at ice currently locked on land by the sea ice that is eroding.

So we can't really predict how quickly seas will rise, which will have a greater impact on what temperatures are doing due to changing the landscape. Bit like predicting the damage a Cat5 storm will do. We know it won't be good for Miami, but we don't know what exactly will be hit first.

I can tell you though that we're losing low-lying islands, particularly in the Pacific, where natural bulges and movement of water give sea level rise of up to 12mm/yr. Eight islands have been lost in the last couple of years, and it's part of a pattern of the last few decades. None of these were inhabited, but there are two island nations that are already having to look for land on them mainland to move their entire populations to. Kiribati has lost most of its land already, and its population have had to migrate to the highest island, having lost the rest to the waves. That island too is being swallowed, so they're looking to buy land from the mainland to move to. http://uk.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?r=US&IR=T/#kiribati-1 Here, if you want to see how it is actually impacting people right now.


*We also suspect measurements were started a bit late, so this actually underestimates the overall rise, but we'll call it 0.8-1C for now.

Edit: dense, the reason I sound so certain is that I'm talking through the basics here. The uncertainty is in impacts, speed, other effects getting mixed in, not the actual physics.

dense

Samaris wrote: »

The average increase through the 20thC, correcting for lunar movement (which obviously regularly impacts what the sea is doing) was between 0.8mm to 3.3mm per year. According to NASA, it's sped up to 3.3mm/yr (+/-0.4). That may not seem much, but it adds up.

This is scratching at straws.
You're talking to a sceptic here.

I'm looking for catastrophe, end of days stuff. The other poster was talking atom bombs, you're talking something that nasa says was traditionally up to 3.3mm a year now regularly being 3.3mm a year.

From what I'm reading the AGW folk say it's too late to reverse the effects of AGW they're so alarmed at anyway.

But didn't see levels fall in the 70s? Will they never fall again?

Samaris

dense wrote: »

This is scratching at straws.
You're talking to a sceptic here.

I'm looking for catastrophe, end of days stuff. The other poster was talking atom bombs, you're talking something that nasa says was traditionally up to 3.3mm a year now regularly being 3.3mm a year.

From what I'm reading the AGW folk say it's too late to reverse the effects of AGW they're so alarmed at anyway.

But didn't see levels fall in the 70s? Will they never fall again?

I know you're looking for end of days stuff! As entertaining as that is to squabble over, I'd prefer to have the basics settled first. Free gratis - if the Antarctic melts badly, which it probably will do at this rate of temperature rise (albeit over decades), you'll have all the end of days you like if you live in a coastal city!

You misread my post. From the latter part of the 1800s, sea-level started rising -from a more or less steady state-. The level of rise through the 20thC was between 1.8-3.3mm/yr, the amount gradually rising, but of course you get wet and dry years throughout as well. Since 2000, it has been averaging 3.3mm/yr, rather than that being an upper limit.

What Akrasia was talking about was the relative increase of -energy- into the global system. Similar to how a kettle may be boiling at 100C, but require x00kJ of energy to get it to that level, s/he was talking about the energy required to increase and maintain such a change. Not done the calculations myself, so I'll take her word for it.

And it's pretty catastrophic already for people living on vanishing land, isn't it?

Regarding the drop, I don't recall one, so I'll have to get back to you on that. Gimme a link to a paper if you would. Preferably not a newspaper as they get it wrong half the time anyway, but it'll do if the journal articles are behind a paywall.