ChatterBank0 min ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. 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.
Climate change is a gradual trend and over a decade or so cooling factors can easily cancel warming factors. It all seems a bit premature to assume all is well. A single decade is next to nothing when compared to the length of time the upward trend has been occurring. Still it gives the doubters an opportunity to mock I suppose, so it has some use.
The Climate Change is taking a break myth is debunked here:
http://www.realclimat...9/10/a-warming-pause/
http://www.realclimat...9/10/a-warming-pause/
rov1100: Your prejudice on this matter is well known and unfortunately very common. Any objective analysis of the science shows your position to be unequivocally wrong.
JonnyBoy12 shows the mentality. They "hope" because they don't "believe" in such things. Well all the hope and belief in the world won't make any difference to the facts.
I have read very widely on this subject and not a single argument put forward by the sceptics has been sustainable. The so called "facts" provided by the sceptics are very often lies perpetrated by those in the pockets of the combustion industry. Some of the loudest voices also spoke out against taking action on Ozone depletion and denied the link between tobacco smoking and cancer.
It is worth noting that there are factors holding back the warming at present.
Firstly, contrary to the "its the Sun" arguments put forward by sceptics the Sun has just come through the lowest minimum in its eleven year activity cycle observed in a very long time.
China has built many coal fired power stations over the past decade. These plants do not have the same sulphur scrubbing technology used in the developed world. Sulphur compounds act as sunshades and reflect sunlight away.
However China is now undertaking a clean up of the technology. After the western world did this in the 1970s and 80s the global temperature rise accelerated. This is consistent with the computer models.
By late in this decade only the hardiest of sceptics will continue to deny the issue. Unfortunately we will have wasted a substantial part of the opportunity to take action.
JonnyBoy12 shows the mentality. They "hope" because they don't "believe" in such things. Well all the hope and belief in the world won't make any difference to the facts.
I have read very widely on this subject and not a single argument put forward by the sceptics has been sustainable. The so called "facts" provided by the sceptics are very often lies perpetrated by those in the pockets of the combustion industry. Some of the loudest voices also spoke out against taking action on Ozone depletion and denied the link between tobacco smoking and cancer.
It is worth noting that there are factors holding back the warming at present.
Firstly, contrary to the "its the Sun" arguments put forward by sceptics the Sun has just come through the lowest minimum in its eleven year activity cycle observed in a very long time.
China has built many coal fired power stations over the past decade. These plants do not have the same sulphur scrubbing technology used in the developed world. Sulphur compounds act as sunshades and reflect sunlight away.
However China is now undertaking a clean up of the technology. After the western world did this in the 1970s and 80s the global temperature rise accelerated. This is consistent with the computer models.
By late in this decade only the hardiest of sceptics will continue to deny the issue. Unfortunately we will have wasted a substantial part of the opportunity to take action.
In its edition of Oct 22, the Economist ran an article titled "A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming."
It reads in part "To build confidence in their methodologies, NASA and NOAA already publish their data and algorithms. Hadley CRU is now doing so. A grander solution, outlined in a forthcoming Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, would be to provide a single online databank of all temperature data and analysis. Part of the point would be to encourage more scientists and statisticians to test the existing analyses—and a group backed by Novim, a research outfit in Santa Barbara, California, has recently done just that.
Inconvenient data
Marshalled by an astrophysicist, Richard Muller, this group, which calls itself the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, is notable in several ways. When embarking on the project 18 months ago, its members (including Saul Perlmutter, who won the Nobel prize for physics this month for his work on dark energy) were mostly new to climate science. And Dr Muller, for one, was mildly sceptical of its findings. This was partly, he says, because of “climategate”: the 2009 revelation of e-mails from scientists at CRU which suggested they had sometimes taken steps to disguise their adjustments of inconvenient palaeo-data. With this reputation, the Berkeley Earth team found it unusually easy to attract sponsors, including a donation of $150,000 from the Koch Foundation.
Yet Berkeley Earth’s results, as described in four papers currently undergoing peer review, but which were nonetheless released on October 20th, offer strong support to the existing temperature compilations. The group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA’s estimate. That is despite its use of a novel methodology—designed, at least in part, to address the concerns of what Dr Muller terms “legitimate sceptics”.
_______
I am no expert on the topic and am merely referencing some recent research from those who are. You may now resume your previously entrenched positions.
It reads in part "To build confidence in their methodologies, NASA and NOAA already publish their data and algorithms. Hadley CRU is now doing so. A grander solution, outlined in a forthcoming Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, would be to provide a single online databank of all temperature data and analysis. Part of the point would be to encourage more scientists and statisticians to test the existing analyses—and a group backed by Novim, a research outfit in Santa Barbara, California, has recently done just that.
Inconvenient data
Marshalled by an astrophysicist, Richard Muller, this group, which calls itself the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, is notable in several ways. When embarking on the project 18 months ago, its members (including Saul Perlmutter, who won the Nobel prize for physics this month for his work on dark energy) were mostly new to climate science. And Dr Muller, for one, was mildly sceptical of its findings. This was partly, he says, because of “climategate”: the 2009 revelation of e-mails from scientists at CRU which suggested they had sometimes taken steps to disguise their adjustments of inconvenient palaeo-data. With this reputation, the Berkeley Earth team found it unusually easy to attract sponsors, including a donation of $150,000 from the Koch Foundation.
Yet Berkeley Earth’s results, as described in four papers currently undergoing peer review, but which were nonetheless released on October 20th, offer strong support to the existing temperature compilations. The group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA’s estimate. That is despite its use of a novel methodology—designed, at least in part, to address the concerns of what Dr Muller terms “legitimate sceptics”.
_______
I am no expert on the topic and am merely referencing some recent research from those who are. You may now resume your previously entrenched positions.
Don't know if this link would work for non-subscribers but the full article is here:
http://www.economist.com/node/21533360
http://www.economist.com/node/21533360
Over or not real or not it wont stop the government using it as an excuse to foist "green taxes" on us.
its a nice easy money earner that can go on until the planet goes into another of its cooling cycles (oh yes, it goes through heating and cooling all on its own, has done for around 4.6billion years) and then they can find some other excuses to tax us
its a nice easy money earner that can go on until the planet goes into another of its cooling cycles (oh yes, it goes through heating and cooling all on its own, has done for around 4.6billion years) and then they can find some other excuses to tax us
A few more decades of measurement certainly will confirm that the models being used are quite accurate.
However if we wait until then to take action the problem will be far bigger than it is now. The level is rising at about 20ppm per decade and continues to rise faster each year. Within a few years we will pass 400ppm, up from 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution.
400ppm was the level in the Pliocene Epoch. Despite the Sun being slightly cooler than today, temperatures were two to three degress Celcius higher and the ocean was 25 meters deeper.
However if we wait until then to take action the problem will be far bigger than it is now. The level is rising at about 20ppm per decade and continues to rise faster each year. Within a few years we will pass 400ppm, up from 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution.
400ppm was the level in the Pliocene Epoch. Despite the Sun being slightly cooler than today, temperatures were two to three degress Celcius higher and the ocean was 25 meters deeper.
If you actually studied the geoligical temperature changes of the planet you would see that carbon dioxide levels are a large driver of temperature increase.
I am constantly amazed how those who know nothing about the subject latch onto the most feeble arguments yet are loudly outspoken about their attitudes.
I am constantly amazed how those who know nothing about the subject latch onto the most feeble arguments yet are loudly outspoken about their attitudes.
-- answer removed --
No one knows the future, all we can do is assess probabilities (I assume the previous poster can at least appreciate the irony in saying "how do you know you're right. Exactly." - and then making a definitive statement about the future).
To make an analogy, suppose we identified an asteroid heading towards earth and the consensus was that there was a 50/50 chance it would hit earth in two years (ending life as we know it, except for the cockroaches). How much of our wealth would we be willing to give up to reduce the chance of impact to 5% (understanding it can never be reduced to zero)? I suspect the answer would be "well, some, anyway".
In a (very) less extreme sense, that's where it seems we are with climate change. Altering our behavior today to reduce the probability of a really bad future outcome seems reasonable. The debate should be about the lowest cost way to achieve the biggest reduction in probability of the "terrible" outcome that we can achieve. Extreme positions (deny the possibility of the bad outcome vs. shut down modern society and return to Eden) don't help resolve the question.
To make an analogy, suppose we identified an asteroid heading towards earth and the consensus was that there was a 50/50 chance it would hit earth in two years (ending life as we know it, except for the cockroaches). How much of our wealth would we be willing to give up to reduce the chance of impact to 5% (understanding it can never be reduced to zero)? I suspect the answer would be "well, some, anyway".
In a (very) less extreme sense, that's where it seems we are with climate change. Altering our behavior today to reduce the probability of a really bad future outcome seems reasonable. The debate should be about the lowest cost way to achieve the biggest reduction in probability of the "terrible" outcome that we can achieve. Extreme positions (deny the possibility of the bad outcome vs. shut down modern society and return to Eden) don't help resolve the question.
Very true Dr B. But it seems the UK is acting disproportionally in trying to solve the problem. As we are only responsible for 2% of the emissions whereas China, the US and India are the main culprits and taking very little action. On top of this Britain is not affected very much and if the strong winds and warmer Summers are what we have to suffer from we could live quite normally unlike some unfortunate areas of the world.
Just like Libya we are trying to solve the world's problems. Some call it delusions of grandeur and its about time we knew our place.
Just like Libya we are trying to solve the world's problems. Some call it delusions of grandeur and its about time we knew our place.
Kayless demonstrates a typical misunderstanding about the four percent.
The carbon cycle had been in balance for at least the past 800,000 years as evidenced from ice cores. Starting just a couple of centuries ago humans began an enormous fire and unbalanced the equilibrium. We added more but the rate of removal has not increased to the same extent.
Despite being relatively small compared to the whole carbon cycle our extra emmissionis are not being absorbed, already leading to a forty percent increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over preindustrial levels.
What do you think would happen if you drank four percent more water every day without increasing how much water you released as sweat, urine etc by the same amount?
Let's say you drink two litres normally. Four percent is only 80 millilitres more. That isn't going to be a problem immediately but it would definitely kill you eventually.
As with the water the balances in the system respond but they can only go so far. The full effects take time. Models show that even if we ceased carbon emmissions today the climate would continue to change.
About half the carbon dioxide we currently emmit is being absorbed by the ocean bu that proportion falls each year as emmissions increse and the oceans abilty to absorb it decrease.
The vast majority of the extra heat retained by the increased carbon dioxide is also being absorbed by the ocean. Theocean is so huge and being made of water it takes an enormous amount of heat to warm it.
However the temperature rise reduces its ability to absorb carbon dioxide so the relationship between the two has a positive feedback. This is why large rises in carbon dioxide follow temperature rises in the geological record. Far from being a defence for sceptics to deny the GreenHouse Effect it aught to ring alarm bells for humanity.
Some of the positive feedback systems include the release of methane hydrates from huge amounts on the ocean floor and the loss of polar icecaps decreasing the amount sunlight reflected back to space.
In human terms these are one way events. The feedback cycles that take the carbon out of the air operate over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Along with changes in the angle of the planet's axis the reversion to cooler temperatures is driven by the changes in carbon dioxide.
In this very long cycle the carbon dioxide is removed from the air through the weathering of non-carbonate rocks. The cycle is observed to flip from one extreme to the other. Over the geological record we have had times of glaciation and times of very high temperature.
This happens because the system rachets one way or the other. We have started winding it towards hot. The planet could easily take over the initiative and the evidence in the record show that this is likely.
Two hundred years is a moment in terms of changes to the earth. The last overnight change with a magnitude on the scale of our affect on the planet was the Chixilub Meteorite Event that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs that had ruled for 160 million years.
The carbon cycle had been in balance for at least the past 800,000 years as evidenced from ice cores. Starting just a couple of centuries ago humans began an enormous fire and unbalanced the equilibrium. We added more but the rate of removal has not increased to the same extent.
Despite being relatively small compared to the whole carbon cycle our extra emmissionis are not being absorbed, already leading to a forty percent increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over preindustrial levels.
What do you think would happen if you drank four percent more water every day without increasing how much water you released as sweat, urine etc by the same amount?
Let's say you drink two litres normally. Four percent is only 80 millilitres more. That isn't going to be a problem immediately but it would definitely kill you eventually.
As with the water the balances in the system respond but they can only go so far. The full effects take time. Models show that even if we ceased carbon emmissions today the climate would continue to change.
About half the carbon dioxide we currently emmit is being absorbed by the ocean bu that proportion falls each year as emmissions increse and the oceans abilty to absorb it decrease.
The vast majority of the extra heat retained by the increased carbon dioxide is also being absorbed by the ocean. Theocean is so huge and being made of water it takes an enormous amount of heat to warm it.
However the temperature rise reduces its ability to absorb carbon dioxide so the relationship between the two has a positive feedback. This is why large rises in carbon dioxide follow temperature rises in the geological record. Far from being a defence for sceptics to deny the GreenHouse Effect it aught to ring alarm bells for humanity.
Some of the positive feedback systems include the release of methane hydrates from huge amounts on the ocean floor and the loss of polar icecaps decreasing the amount sunlight reflected back to space.
In human terms these are one way events. The feedback cycles that take the carbon out of the air operate over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Along with changes in the angle of the planet's axis the reversion to cooler temperatures is driven by the changes in carbon dioxide.
In this very long cycle the carbon dioxide is removed from the air through the weathering of non-carbonate rocks. The cycle is observed to flip from one extreme to the other. Over the geological record we have had times of glaciation and times of very high temperature.
This happens because the system rachets one way or the other. We have started winding it towards hot. The planet could easily take over the initiative and the evidence in the record show that this is likely.
Two hundred years is a moment in terms of changes to the earth. The last overnight change with a magnitude on the scale of our affect on the planet was the Chixilub Meteorite Event that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs that had ruled for 160 million years.
but son of krakatoa puts out more than mankind has been erupting continuously since the 19th century! What about the Icelandic erruptions, undid an estimated 10 years of mankinds efforts? So all the volcanic erruptions don't count?? It's like fixing a small leak in a boat only to discover that one whole side is missing!
