How it Works0 min ago
Climate tipping point question
This theory is totally bugging me. James Hansen claims that at a future point of rising CO2, when the temperature reaches around +2.5C there will be a runaway increase with associated chaos.
As I only managed O level physics I only have the basics, but seems to me to violate two laws of physics. By simply changing the atmosphere, how can you actually create more heat than goes in, assuming the sun is constant for this equation? His theory implies that at a certain point he refers to as a 'tipping point', the hitherto relatively stable climate will go haywire as will the temperature.
The second is that tipping points only refer to objects with mass reaching a point where the portion over a line reaches over 50% of its total and gravity takes over and it falls. You could just about call boiling point one as well but that won't apply here of course.
So my simple question is that bearing in mind this is a future event with no prior history or known experimental data, what phenomenon does he claim will change a climate which has undergone CO2 and temperature levels far higher than the present and forseeable future is now going to go crazy when it crosses a hitherto unknown point?
I have more time and patience than at 16 so the little research I could manage tells me every single aspect of his claim is impossible. Not unlikely or sheer genius, but 100% against every law of conservation of energy, heat and mass. But as I have no actual training past 16 I have to ask people who should know to see if I may still have missed something.
As I only managed O level physics I only have the basics, but seems to me to violate two laws of physics. By simply changing the atmosphere, how can you actually create more heat than goes in, assuming the sun is constant for this equation? His theory implies that at a certain point he refers to as a 'tipping point', the hitherto relatively stable climate will go haywire as will the temperature.
The second is that tipping points only refer to objects with mass reaching a point where the portion over a line reaches over 50% of its total and gravity takes over and it falls. You could just about call boiling point one as well but that won't apply here of course.
So my simple question is that bearing in mind this is a future event with no prior history or known experimental data, what phenomenon does he claim will change a climate which has undergone CO2 and temperature levels far higher than the present and forseeable future is now going to go crazy when it crosses a hitherto unknown point?
I have more time and patience than at 16 so the little research I could manage tells me every single aspect of his claim is impossible. Not unlikely or sheer genius, but 100% against every law of conservation of energy, heat and mass. But as I have no actual training past 16 I have to ask people who should know to see if I may still have missed something.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by David H. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The global warming industry is a major growth area. Any scientist wanting a well funded job has to bow the knee to this theory, just as he would have accepted the sun went round the earth in times past. The received wisdom has proved wrong many, many times.
Aren't we supposed to be entering an ice age?
What about all the oceanic plant life which will grow in any ocean warming scenario, pumping out oxygen?
Aren't we supposed to be entering an ice age?
What about all the oceanic plant life which will grow in any ocean warming scenario, pumping out oxygen?
Bedford DTCrosswordfan ?
You don't say?
There are vinyards in Yorkshire now!
http://www.englishwin...s.com/leventhorpe.htm
But back to the question
Tipping points are from my understanding still somewhat contraversial in terms of whether or where they will occur but they aren't against any laws of physics.
Tipping points are to do with the loss of feedback systems.
An example or two
The poles are covered in ice and that's white - consequently they reflect energy back into space.
As it gets warmer more ice melts and less light is reflected and you get into a vicious spiral.
There are similar supposed tipping points relating to the release of methane with warming seas releasing methane and warming the planet etc.
I've not looked at the specifics of one man's claims and I'd caution against it whatever side of the debate he's on.
I don't believe there are any well accepted tipping points at this stage
Don't forget though the mechanics of the Greenhouse
Light goes in and is re-radiated not as light but as infrared heat which is trapped - this is how any greenhouse works. So it's perfectly possible for a planet to get more heat than goes in as heat - it can be re-radiated light
You don't say?
There are vinyards in Yorkshire now!
http://www.englishwin...s.com/leventhorpe.htm
But back to the question
Tipping points are from my understanding still somewhat contraversial in terms of whether or where they will occur but they aren't against any laws of physics.
Tipping points are to do with the loss of feedback systems.
An example or two
The poles are covered in ice and that's white - consequently they reflect energy back into space.
As it gets warmer more ice melts and less light is reflected and you get into a vicious spiral.
There are similar supposed tipping points relating to the release of methane with warming seas releasing methane and warming the planet etc.
I've not looked at the specifics of one man's claims and I'd caution against it whatever side of the debate he's on.
I don't believe there are any well accepted tipping points at this stage
Don't forget though the mechanics of the Greenhouse
Light goes in and is re-radiated not as light but as infrared heat which is trapped - this is how any greenhouse works. So it's perfectly possible for a planet to get more heat than goes in as heat - it can be re-radiated light
People might be interested in the New Scientist's opinion of the "it was warmer in the middle-ages-look they had vinyards" myth
http://www.newscienti...yards-in-england.html
Bt the way I do love Venators idea that every scientific institution on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to trick the countries of the world into giving them money using fallacious data!
I suppose he thinks the moon landings were faked too and that the CIA were responsible for 9/11
Do you think perhap's that if the Higgs Boson is discovered he will denounce it as a sham and that the whole CERN project was likewise a fraud to raise research grants?
Or is it just science that has inconveniant discoveries that is fraudulent? Funny that!
http://www.newscienti...yards-in-england.html
Bt the way I do love Venators idea that every scientific institution on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to trick the countries of the world into giving them money using fallacious data!
I suppose he thinks the moon landings were faked too and that the CIA were responsible for 9/11
Do you think perhap's that if the Higgs Boson is discovered he will denounce it as a sham and that the whole CERN project was likewise a fraud to raise research grants?
Or is it just science that has inconveniant discoveries that is fraudulent? Funny that!
Oy vey, as I was asking a question and not answering one I didn't think I needed sources if I quoted the passage correctly, but here's one article he wrote of many more, which continue to this day despite no actual signs or wonders.
http://www.huffington...-tippin_b_108766.html
It was only CO2 as methane is a little of a red herring and has swung wildly compared to CO2 through measured history with no dire changes. I have posted this on a few sites as because the IPCC themselves have based UN and as a result world policies not just on a disputed current graph by colleague Michael Mann, which has just been shown to rebase the 30 year rolling average right at the exact point of the corresponding end of a 60 year oceanic cycle, the main effect being that by choosing the low point for the anomaly everything was doubled at either end, whereas had they used a 60 year average to avoid the natural peaks altogether the graph was almost flat despite using the same temperature figures.
Back to the tipping point, the other answer I have had from an MSc who helps me out in such areas basically said the same things I did plus the feedback, which is both Hansen's theory, which ignores the points that the water vapour expected (when?) to rise to the skies has to form clouds in the right places for long enough to perform such a function. Just evaporating more water does not automatically increase the sum in the atmosphere as being a liquid and not a gas is in a constant precipitation cycle. But the killer punch was indeed a familiar one. There is not a single scrap of observed evidence there is such a feedback, although the CO2 has risen by 50% already. Secondly there is no previous known situation either in history or experiment where such a rise caused or could cause such a feedback even without a delay not predicted by Hansen.
As the counsel for prosecution in this case (I have taken this on as Lord Monckton has also chosen to for the Climategate case if advised to go ahead) I would say that Hansen has fooled (or worse still fed) the IPCC into creating a situation they are taxing us to 'prevent' while science itself puts forth no history, equation or observation present or past to support his theory. I was almost sure when I read it in detail for the first time last night it didn't hold together, but before I added it to my 'round file' had to check with those who did a science A level or beyond that I hadn't missed something.
In fact I would say the world has missed something, as without galloping feedback the whole case tells us 'business as usual' as CO2 is way way higher than even when I was born, and the sea level, a pretty good cause celebre of the IPCC brigade, is still rising at under a foot a year, while Hansen and his merry men were talking about 10-30 feet in the 90s.
We must keep up with these developments and not forget the predictions when exact number ranges are given. These are not 'a little out' but millions of percent out (no maths O level so may have missed a decimal point?) but enough for every other single scientific projection to be dumped, so why hasn't this one?
http://www.huffington...-tippin_b_108766.html
It was only CO2 as methane is a little of a red herring and has swung wildly compared to CO2 through measured history with no dire changes. I have posted this on a few sites as because the IPCC themselves have based UN and as a result world policies not just on a disputed current graph by colleague Michael Mann, which has just been shown to rebase the 30 year rolling average right at the exact point of the corresponding end of a 60 year oceanic cycle, the main effect being that by choosing the low point for the anomaly everything was doubled at either end, whereas had they used a 60 year average to avoid the natural peaks altogether the graph was almost flat despite using the same temperature figures.
Back to the tipping point, the other answer I have had from an MSc who helps me out in such areas basically said the same things I did plus the feedback, which is both Hansen's theory, which ignores the points that the water vapour expected (when?) to rise to the skies has to form clouds in the right places for long enough to perform such a function. Just evaporating more water does not automatically increase the sum in the atmosphere as being a liquid and not a gas is in a constant precipitation cycle. But the killer punch was indeed a familiar one. There is not a single scrap of observed evidence there is such a feedback, although the CO2 has risen by 50% already. Secondly there is no previous known situation either in history or experiment where such a rise caused or could cause such a feedback even without a delay not predicted by Hansen.
As the counsel for prosecution in this case (I have taken this on as Lord Monckton has also chosen to for the Climategate case if advised to go ahead) I would say that Hansen has fooled (or worse still fed) the IPCC into creating a situation they are taxing us to 'prevent' while science itself puts forth no history, equation or observation present or past to support his theory. I was almost sure when I read it in detail for the first time last night it didn't hold together, but before I added it to my 'round file' had to check with those who did a science A level or beyond that I hadn't missed something.
In fact I would say the world has missed something, as without galloping feedback the whole case tells us 'business as usual' as CO2 is way way higher than even when I was born, and the sea level, a pretty good cause celebre of the IPCC brigade, is still rising at under a foot a year, while Hansen and his merry men were talking about 10-30 feet in the 90s.
We must keep up with these developments and not forget the predictions when exact number ranges are given. These are not 'a little out' but millions of percent out (no maths O level so may have missed a decimal point?) but enough for every other single scientific projection to be dumped, so why hasn't this one?
David H // ... while Hansen and his merry men were talking about 10-30 feet in the 90s. //
I would like to see a reference to that claim. I expect it is typical denialist misinformation painting extreme pictures so far beyond the concensus views and arranged to portray all science as wildy inaccurate.
Even in the unlikely chance that Hansen did predict a rise of ten to thirty feet to have been reached by now that was certainly not the scientific concensus. The sea level rise continues to follow the predictions made in the 1980s using far simpler models.
Moreover the rise has proved to be in the high end of the projected range.
I would like to see a reference to that claim. I expect it is typical denialist misinformation painting extreme pictures so far beyond the concensus views and arranged to portray all science as wildy inaccurate.
Even in the unlikely chance that Hansen did predict a rise of ten to thirty feet to have been reached by now that was certainly not the scientific concensus. The sea level rise continues to follow the predictions made in the 1980s using far simpler models.
Moreover the rise has proved to be in the high end of the projected range.
This is interesting. Experience tells us that since CO2 has risen drastically our temperature has not, so why would we ever expect anything to change? Water vapour? No, it isn't increasing, and NASA's Aqua satellite discovered CO2 actually replaces it when increasing, therefore reducing the greenhouse effect as it is a lot weaker.
Today this article arrived in my list which is the apparent sole reason for the IPCC's existence, as CO2 directly and water vapour cannot cause runaway climate change through exponential warming, but they thought methane could.
http://wattsupwiththa...ght-billions-may-die/
A few years since this theory was put forward, it has become known the methane cycle actually followed CO2 naturally since the climate began, so any changes had been natural for both. The methane has gone up since then already, about 300%, and as any experiment shows, had no effect. Nothing at all, it couldn't even be measured in the noise of the millions of other changes (not an exaggeration) at such a low level. Then it started to fall. So the methane has risen, no one was there to see it, and now going away as nature absorbs it on its own.
If Rajendra Pachauri heading the IPCC does not know this he ought to be retired, along with his whole organisation, as without methane CO2 and water vapour alone cannot cause climate change. Who says? The methane article. They, and not me or Anthony Watts, say the cause of the climate change Al Gore wanted us all to disown our parents about like all good cult leaders, is methane. CO2 would raise temperatures enough to release the methane beneath the ice which would generate more etc etc until we were 20C higher.
That in fact left science behind altogether as although the methane has since escaped, the same laws of physics apply to all gases, and as we are not so close to the sun like Venus, which they appear to have used as a model, methane still cannot and never will actually generate heat. However many chemicals you get in the air only the sun can do that, their case is dead.
Hansen's original theory has been continued to this day, although the methane element seems to have become obscured in the mists. But the claims are mainly from Greenpeace and associated scientists like George Monbiot (he's a scientist?) who wait in the wings every time the IPCC make an announcement saying it's not high enough.
Unfortunately outlandish claims are not required to be made up to discredit the believers in things to come, they are all invented over maybe a nice evening round the shisha pipe or a return from an office party when the inhibitions have been loosened by alcohol. But amazingly even you are shocked and amazed by such incredible claims, but have to remind you the only reason the IPCC exist today is because of this theory. Three levels: CO2 rise, not enought, water vapour rise, yes, in theory, hasn't happened, methane, could do it, nope, didn't happen.
http://www.huffington...-tippin_b_108766.html
"stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods." Nope.
"But more warming is already "in the pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm," a global cataclysm, are assembled."
"Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. "
Sorry, he should be locked up. Science does not work like that, there is no evidence in history any of this is possible and he has fooled everyone. Without this runaway feedback there CAN be no climate change, and it simply hasn't got the laws of physics behind it to do so. I'll find some exact figure guesses when they turn up, they weren't exagerrated, not by me anyway...
Today this article arrived in my list which is the apparent sole reason for the IPCC's existence, as CO2 directly and water vapour cannot cause runaway climate change through exponential warming, but they thought methane could.
http://wattsupwiththa...ght-billions-may-die/
A few years since this theory was put forward, it has become known the methane cycle actually followed CO2 naturally since the climate began, so any changes had been natural for both. The methane has gone up since then already, about 300%, and as any experiment shows, had no effect. Nothing at all, it couldn't even be measured in the noise of the millions of other changes (not an exaggeration) at such a low level. Then it started to fall. So the methane has risen, no one was there to see it, and now going away as nature absorbs it on its own.
If Rajendra Pachauri heading the IPCC does not know this he ought to be retired, along with his whole organisation, as without methane CO2 and water vapour alone cannot cause climate change. Who says? The methane article. They, and not me or Anthony Watts, say the cause of the climate change Al Gore wanted us all to disown our parents about like all good cult leaders, is methane. CO2 would raise temperatures enough to release the methane beneath the ice which would generate more etc etc until we were 20C higher.
That in fact left science behind altogether as although the methane has since escaped, the same laws of physics apply to all gases, and as we are not so close to the sun like Venus, which they appear to have used as a model, methane still cannot and never will actually generate heat. However many chemicals you get in the air only the sun can do that, their case is dead.
Hansen's original theory has been continued to this day, although the methane element seems to have become obscured in the mists. But the claims are mainly from Greenpeace and associated scientists like George Monbiot (he's a scientist?) who wait in the wings every time the IPCC make an announcement saying it's not high enough.
Unfortunately outlandish claims are not required to be made up to discredit the believers in things to come, they are all invented over maybe a nice evening round the shisha pipe or a return from an office party when the inhibitions have been loosened by alcohol. But amazingly even you are shocked and amazed by such incredible claims, but have to remind you the only reason the IPCC exist today is because of this theory. Three levels: CO2 rise, not enought, water vapour rise, yes, in theory, hasn't happened, methane, could do it, nope, didn't happen.
http://www.huffington...-tippin_b_108766.html
"stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods." Nope.
"But more warming is already "in the pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm," a global cataclysm, are assembled."
"Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. "
Sorry, he should be locked up. Science does not work like that, there is no evidence in history any of this is possible and he has fooled everyone. Without this runaway feedback there CAN be no climate change, and it simply hasn't got the laws of physics behind it to do so. I'll find some exact figure guesses when they turn up, they weren't exagerrated, not by me anyway...
I've read far worse in the papers, 6-10C by 2100 and many feet of sea level rise (all IPCC scientists put the cap at around 2 feet at the high end so no consensus there) but here's one site which does nothing but global warming predictions (someone's got the silver spoon treatment for sure, better to give the money to gypsies at the seaside who actually need the money), but this quote is typical of what The Guardian and Independent print every single time there's another story on the climate, ie the IPCC are predicting way too low. ie they support them when they say what they want, but as soon as they don't they're almost as bad as the skeptics. You always have in fighting in activist groups, the moderates and the far outs, and at the moment the far outs are winning the argument going by the new laws in Australia and the latest extension of Kyoto and associated plans in Durban. Had they kept the mid point of around 2C (highly unlikely on the current linear trend) they could have happily let the climate do its thing and spend zero on trying to prevent emissions essential for human life (bear in mind had we had a billion population instead of seven billion then the fuel required would be a fraction and never an issue relating to its emissions or eventual loss.
Here's a quote typical of the groups unsatisfied with annual IPCC related updates they all claim are far too low:
"The research is based on a conservative temperature increase of 1.6 degrees Celsius over the next 40 years [2010-2050]."
and then
"The global warming from doubling CO2 levels would boost temperatures—both the daytime highs and the nighttime lows—by about 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit). "
http://www.global-war...obal-warming-2050.php
This is a relatively moderate group running the site, but as the business of predictions is more about gaining people's attention than forecasting an unknowable future the actual figures are all worthless if not on a linear system and would not spend a penny of my own or anyone else's money based on a single one.
Here's a quote typical of the groups unsatisfied with annual IPCC related updates they all claim are far too low:
"The research is based on a conservative temperature increase of 1.6 degrees Celsius over the next 40 years [2010-2050]."
and then
"The global warming from doubling CO2 levels would boost temperatures—both the daytime highs and the nighttime lows—by about 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit). "
http://www.global-war...obal-warming-2050.php
This is a relatively moderate group running the site, but as the business of predictions is more about gaining people's attention than forecasting an unknowable future the actual figures are all worthless if not on a linear system and would not spend a penny of my own or anyone else's money based on a single one.
I am not even going to bother to read what you have written, David. You have aptly demonstrated your religious assertion that nothing is happening or it wans't due to man or it wouldn't have any affect or it would be better. You don't really care where you argue so long as it is against the accepted scientific position.
I am tired of reading the garbage science that all your links have led us to before. Faked graphs, sinusoidal ocean levels based half a period, poorly written papers by serial deniers. The only thing that might change your prejudice is another decade of observations.
Undertaking another protracted argument with you is clearly pointless. It is far more entertaining shooting the fish in the barrell over on R&S.
I am tired of reading the garbage science that all your links have led us to before. Faked graphs, sinusoidal ocean levels based half a period, poorly written papers by serial deniers. The only thing that might change your prejudice is another decade of observations.
Undertaking another protracted argument with you is clearly pointless. It is far more entertaining shooting the fish in the barrell over on R&S.
One typical guess from 1997 just surfaced, and since then the guess has simply extended the current figures in linear fashion.
How anyone can say I simply disagree with science where science hasn't a clue is anyone's guess. The changes which have happened would never be considered unusual unless CO2 had risen and some wiseguy thought there could be a connection. Every single idea has been torn apart in the 30 or so years since the first material was proposed, but as the IPCC wield more power worldwide than any organisation prior then they will keep their tax raising machine going in the face of all new data as that was the only actual reason it was set up. Just learn about the Club of Rome and Agenda 21. It's not a conspiracy, one is a policy document from the most powerful think tank in the world, the other is a UN policy document dressed up to cater for the environment but through world taxation.
Now if people actually want a single government and a currency which expires every year so no one can amass capital then fine, vote for it at the next election. But none of it has anything to do with the environment. The IPCC head economist said so in 2010 to a chorus of press silence, but now they've said the IPCC is not about the environment but economic redistribution then I think you and all the other scientists you swallow blindly should go home and think up a new scare story if they want to stay in the limelight and get enormous grounds. Don't you get it, they haven't had their cover blown, they've openly stated at regular interviews on the record this is an economic exercise to even the economic playing field with the third world. The fact the environment was the easiest route to carry it out is now history and should be dumped right there where it belongs.
http://biased-bbc.blo...&utm_content=Netvibes
http://kingsbury.multiply.com/journal/item/35
How anyone can say I simply disagree with science where science hasn't a clue is anyone's guess. The changes which have happened would never be considered unusual unless CO2 had risen and some wiseguy thought there could be a connection. Every single idea has been torn apart in the 30 or so years since the first material was proposed, but as the IPCC wield more power worldwide than any organisation prior then they will keep their tax raising machine going in the face of all new data as that was the only actual reason it was set up. Just learn about the Club of Rome and Agenda 21. It's not a conspiracy, one is a policy document from the most powerful think tank in the world, the other is a UN policy document dressed up to cater for the environment but through world taxation.
Now if people actually want a single government and a currency which expires every year so no one can amass capital then fine, vote for it at the next election. But none of it has anything to do with the environment. The IPCC head economist said so in 2010 to a chorus of press silence, but now they've said the IPCC is not about the environment but economic redistribution then I think you and all the other scientists you swallow blindly should go home and think up a new scare story if they want to stay in the limelight and get enormous grounds. Don't you get it, they haven't had their cover blown, they've openly stated at regular interviews on the record this is an economic exercise to even the economic playing field with the third world. The fact the environment was the easiest route to carry it out is now history and should be dumped right there where it belongs.
http://biased-bbc.blo...&utm_content=Netvibes
http://kingsbury.multiply.com/journal/item/35
This just arrived like manna from heaven, these speakers are clearly above the level of being under any threat from the authorities, because they are the authorities. But you have all been told:
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
David H continues to propogate his beloved, bigotted myths using completely out of context quotes to further his agenda of lies.
The scientific claims have not bee blown apart. Far from it. The measured progress of Climate Change is consistently in the highest range or above the levels projected by the models.
You can supply all the links you want to sites full of rubbish claims but it won't change the facts.
If you are really interested in "tipping points" I suggest you follow up on the latest research in to the dramatic increase in the amount of methane being released from the Arctic, particularly in Siberia.
The scientific claims have not bee blown apart. Far from it. The measured progress of Climate Change is consistently in the highest range or above the levels projected by the models.
You can supply all the links you want to sites full of rubbish claims but it won't change the facts.
If you are really interested in "tipping points" I suggest you follow up on the latest research in to the dramatic increase in the amount of methane being released from the Arctic, particularly in Siberia.
Darn, I thought you'd given up or I'd have replied earlier.
I'll let others read the data themselves and see what they think as your own claims are personal opinion and I can quote pages of PhD scientists who say the opposite. It's not a pantomime, it's hard science and those models are soft as excrement.
The methane claim sadly lets you down. Of course I know about the methane. I know that methane combines with Oxygen and degrades to CO2 very fast, which is why there's so little in the environment. I also know CO2 and methane have tracked themselves closely throughout measurable history, another relationship the IPCC have consigned to the 'not our business' file, like the sunspot activity and the solar output which again track all temperatures with a better fit than CO2.
I have done my homework before I comment here, everyone not qualified to sift them will post apparently reliable sources which fail on closer inspection, but that's a given as they cancel each other out (Himalayan glaciers melting in 2035, no snow in Britain by 2010 etc). I won't mention yours if you don't mention mine.
I will quote a science graduate from another site for you who explains the obvious position for anyone familiar with history:
"The feedback theory is pure nonsense. If it were true then our planet would have overheated billions of years ago as any slight temp rise (from whatever cause, solar etc) would have led to more water vapour in the atmosphere which would have raised temps, which would have increased water vapour in the atmosphere thus raising temperatures etc in an unstoppable spiral."
This is a perfect example where logic can be seen by all, qualified or not.
The methane scare has been discredited already here http://www.globalwarm...he-methane-time-bomb/ and you really shouldn't be lowering yourself with tabloid junk like this. The methane has been there waiting to come out one way or another, and although this site explains why it's harmless blaming man for that is really a sneaky move and even beyond what I expected here.
I'll let others read the data themselves and see what they think as your own claims are personal opinion and I can quote pages of PhD scientists who say the opposite. It's not a pantomime, it's hard science and those models are soft as excrement.
The methane claim sadly lets you down. Of course I know about the methane. I know that methane combines with Oxygen and degrades to CO2 very fast, which is why there's so little in the environment. I also know CO2 and methane have tracked themselves closely throughout measurable history, another relationship the IPCC have consigned to the 'not our business' file, like the sunspot activity and the solar output which again track all temperatures with a better fit than CO2.
I have done my homework before I comment here, everyone not qualified to sift them will post apparently reliable sources which fail on closer inspection, but that's a given as they cancel each other out (Himalayan glaciers melting in 2035, no snow in Britain by 2010 etc). I won't mention yours if you don't mention mine.
I will quote a science graduate from another site for you who explains the obvious position for anyone familiar with history:
"The feedback theory is pure nonsense. If it were true then our planet would have overheated billions of years ago as any slight temp rise (from whatever cause, solar etc) would have led to more water vapour in the atmosphere which would have raised temps, which would have increased water vapour in the atmosphere thus raising temperatures etc in an unstoppable spiral."
This is a perfect example where logic can be seen by all, qualified or not.
The methane scare has been discredited already here http://www.globalwarm...he-methane-time-bomb/ and you really shouldn't be lowering yourself with tabloid junk like this. The methane has been there waiting to come out one way or another, and although this site explains why it's harmless blaming man for that is really a sneaky move and even beyond what I expected here.
Another explanation of predictions and projections past and present. If only people could see these on TV and not yet more melting ice.
http://www.sciencebit....Tw4MT9UxG9U.facebook
http://www.sciencebit....Tw4MT9UxG9U.facebook
Whoo hoo David. A link to a article on climate skeptic site containing a link to articles by a "climate blogger" and a "science writer" who report, so and so "told me". It isn't even good journalism let alone science.
As I said earlier, I have no intention of entering into another pointless debate with you. Depite my exposere the rubbish you offered in our previous discussion you have not even considered a change in your position.
Like so many others only another decade of measurements could have even the slightest chance of influencing you though I expect you will go on being a denialist until you meet your grave.
As I said earlier, I have no intention of entering into another pointless debate with you. Depite my exposere the rubbish you offered in our previous discussion you have not even considered a change in your position.
Like so many others only another decade of measurements could have even the slightest chance of influencing you though I expect you will go on being a denialist until you meet your grave.
I presume every jury member who spends a week or two in front of a court and finds the defendant not guilty beyond reasonable doubt is also a denialist? Except they have a chance to see both sides of the case unlike the general public who are rarely shown the defence. And yes, I and everyone else in the world needs more evidence, the current changes are all within a very narrow area of fluctuation, and the ice is nearly back to what it was before 2007. What case?
David, it is clear from our previous discussions that you have chosen to shut your eyes to the real evidence and accept anything that reinforces your prejudices.
As usual your latest claim is rubbish. You really should open your eyes and read the facts instead of swallowing what is fed to you by denialist sites.
As usual your latest claim is rubbish. You really should open your eyes and read the facts instead of swallowing what is fed to you by denialist sites.
I was asked a few months ago for claims sea level would rise 5 metres or more (or was it 50? What's the difference when you're spouting nonsense anyway?). As more material keeps arising the latest nonsense (for this is what they have been very well paid to produce) trumps my previous disputed claims by quite a bit at 70 feet (based on, er, hold on, ...)
http://
I vaguely remember even beso said such claims didn't exist (and if they did would not be accurate) but they keep coming, and growing with every new spin of the wheel of financial fortune.
Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations will have to deal with sea levels 12 to 22 meters (40 to 70 feet) higher than at present, according to research published in the journal Geology.
I have added a good deal of research since posting this thread, and can guarantee (based on historic sea level/temperature records alone) what they are saying is physically impossible, 100%.
http://
I vaguely remember even beso said such claims didn't exist (and if they did would not be accurate) but they keep coming, and growing with every new spin of the wheel of financial fortune.
Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations will have to deal with sea levels 12 to 22 meters (40 to 70 feet) higher than at present, according to research published in the journal Geology.
I have added a good deal of research since posting this thread, and can guarantee (based on historic sea level/temperature records alone) what they are saying is physically impossible, 100%.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
ChatterBank56 mins ago
Power Of Social Media Put To Good Use
News69 mins ago
Learn Cpr And First Aid Course In South...
Science197 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.