Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

a reply to: MamaJ

Basically you aren't doing much ... you are wanting something done but not willing to do more than watch fuel and electricity??

That's about all I can do. Unless you think I should go bomb the offices of Chevron?

So the science that differs from your stance on this issue is called what?

I haven't seen any that varies at any substantial level.

a reply to: butcherguy

I am watching two sides fighting about something that they will never see.

Some of us care about something other than themselves.
Some of us have children.

I told you what the study says.

You couldn't possibly quote it for me since I can't access it unfortunately.

But in order for a regional effect (cloud cover) to produce a global effect it must first have a regional effect. More clouds in the Arctic, higher temperatures in the Arctic. It seems to indicate that the small change in cloud coverage does not have the forcing effect you think it may.

Perhaps so. The assumption made in the calculation was that there was a 'general decrease' in clouds. The back-of-the-envelope calaculation of 3.4W/sq.m doesn't appear to be far off the other two studies cited though. It falls more or less in the middle, assuming those studies are correct. The 6.8W/sq.m from decreased albedo in the other study seems a lot.

a reply to: Phage

Bomb offices of Chevorn? Seriously? Why would you even ask if I think you should do such a thing?

In case you are serious!!?? Let me answer the dumbest question of the day then...
I doubt that will help. I can think of other ways but I too doubt you really want my advice.

There are varying opinions. Sorry.

It's a debate among the scientific community. Has been... and will continue to be until someone actually produces something that is substantial enough to take the debate over to a real consensus with proof of a root cause.

My position is everything has a cause and effect. There isn't just one thing that is causing climate to change. To say we have global warming due to mans use of electricity and cars ONLY is something I don't see being proven to be the exclusive cause.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

www.globalresearch.ca...

I can find numerous scientists, papers and reports as well as statistics that disagree with one another.

Which side you listen to is a choice. You have clearly chosen your side.

Do we have enough data from our past to determine an exact cause of atmospheric and oceanic warming? Has the Earth ever warmed this way, before man's dependence on electricity and vehicles? How far does the data go back? Is the data history sufficient enough to narrow the cause down to man and his toys?

The debate continues not just here but in the scientific community as well. To say "the science" is all in on this issue is far from the truth.

a reply to: Phage

My son is about to be 16 next month. I'd like to leave this life knowing his life won't be filled with strife. I'd like to have grandchildren and I'd like to see him be able to have children if he wants them and not have to deny himself that joy because of the selfish morons that live on Earth now.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You comment on climate a lot. How do you not know even this little bit?

a reply to: MamaJ

There isn't just one thing that is causing climate to change.

Yes. But human activity is the most important one right now. It's also the one we can do something about.

I can find numerous scientists, papers and reports as well as statistics that disagree with one another.

Some examples? I know that there is disagreement of various details, but not at a substantive level. Which is what I said. And of course, there is some that is just wrong.

Which side you listen to is a choice. You have clearly chosen your side.

Perhaps. A choice based on critical thinking.

Has the Earth ever warmed this way, before man's dependence on electricity and vehicles?

If it has, does that mean that human activity is not causing the warming we are seeing? (Something, btw, your source above denies is occurring).

The debate continues not just here but in the scientific community as well. To say "the science" is all in on this issue is far from the truth.

Not so much in the "scientific community", unless you consider sources like yours above to be scientific. Your source:

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Can you provide a single model which predicts an increase of 60º C in the next 100 years?

originally posted by: MamaJ
I have a couple of questions... and possible answers.

How long have we kept records of climate? I believe we have kept records at least since 1800's to 1900.

We do not have a clear definition of trends and or patterns before the actual data. Its all assumed or collected and assumed based on knowledge and tools of modern day.

The climate has changed enough over the years to migrate cultures. We learn this in History class early on in school.

This is the sort of off-topic reasoning I was trying to eliminate with the OP.

How do we know man made is the root cause?

Because of the physics. It's the blanket thing again - we know there's a blanket and we know it's getting thicker. You're trying to reason away the blanket by saying "well I don't know if it's making me warmer because my temperature's fluctuated in the past and I don't have a clear record of the trends." But we know it's the blanket because we already understand how a blanket works. Past trends are irrelevant.

My opinion is we do not know for sure the root cause. If we knew for sure we wouldn't be discussing it.

"We" are still discussing it because there's a massive propaganda campaign waged by fossil fuel companies and other shills to convince the general public there's still an active debate here. (Hi ATS - maybe we can all start discussing the actual conspiracy behind climate change now). The discussion in the scientific community is long over. The only debate left is how bad it will be and how to mitigate it.

Past history shows us volcanic activity, oceans warming and rising have been a problem in the past causing humans to relocate to another place and or higher ground.

Patterns are emerging suggesting solar weather plays a huge roll here on Earth.

We are in an Ice age still... One that may indeed get worse

Time will most certainly tell us and there wont be a question.

Again, irrelevant talking points. None of these things change the physics of the blanket. Some may mask it for a while - e.g. major volcanic activity would be like pointing a fan this way for a few years, but the blanket's still there and getting thicker. Skeptics need to stop hiding under it and come out and have an honest conversation about all this stuff for once.

originally posted by: MamaJ
There are varying opinions. Sorry.

It's a debate among the scientific community. Has been... and will continue to be until someone actually produces something that is substantial enough to take the debate over to a real consensus with proof of a root cause.

My position is everything has a cause and effect. There isn't just one thing that is causing climate to change. To say we have global warming due to mans use of electricity and cars ONLY is something I don't see being proven to be the exclusive cause.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

I can find numerous scientists, papers and reports as well as statistics that disagree with one another.

Which side you listen to is a choice. You have clearly chosen your side.

That's pretty much the nub of it all. It says in the Op heading, 'Climate change' not AGW, yet only a few sentences on in the first post, it obvious the idea is to introduce the human element as prime suspect.

a reply to: Phage

So. Let's just sit on our hands and wait.
While ignoring the science because, well, it's just science after all and what has science ever gotten right?

Not often, if you are suggesting that IPCC projections is science.



And then there is the RSS satellite record that shows a rising trend of zero degree's for the last 15 years!



The IPCC states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” One has to really ask if that is science Phage? Did Einstein say it was extremely likely that E=MC2 or did he provide the maths to prove that E=MC2.

Science is being sent back to the dark ages by those pushing a political agenda that will ultimately lead to the funding of a fascist global government more concerned with their own power and profits than that of nature.

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Phage

It's a debate among the scientific community. Has been... and will continue to be until someone actually produces something that is substantial enough to take the debate over to a real consensus with proof of a root cause.

It sounds like you've completely ignored all the information presented in the OP, since it was oriented around a presentation of the proof for a root cause. That evidence is where the 97% consensus comes from.

There is a consensus and there is proof for it. You can keep telling yourself it doesn't exist, and I'll explain to you where the term climate "denier" comes from...

a reply to: mc_squared

around a presentation of the proof for a root cause

I must have missed the bit in the youtube video that measured that both bottles were at the same atmospheric pressure and the second bottle had only 400 parts per million more CO2 than the first bottle. Of cause one can also conclude that water is poisonousness by dumping them in the middle of the ocean and watching them drown instead of making them drink a glass of it.

That is not proof at all.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: mc_squared

around a presentation of the proof for a root cause

I must have missed the bit in the youtube video that measured that both bottles were at the same atmospheric pressure and the second bottle had only 400 parts per million more CO2 than the first bottle. Of cause one can also conclude that water is poisonousness by dumping them in the middle of the ocean and watching them drown instead of making them drink a glass of it.

That is not proof at all.

Try it yourself, then.

The BBC video talks about how to do your own experiment. Verify for yourself.

If you can present evidence that CO2 isn't actually a greenhouse gas, then you'll be famous and probably get speaking requests at all over the world.

A lucrative opportunity, don't you think?

I suppose if you do not take this up, then you are signifying that your argument is a speculative one and you really aren't invested in whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.

a reply to: glend

Not often, if you are suggesting that IPCC projections is science.

No source? Why use predictions which are 25 years old? You know that science does change, right? It does improve. Why cherry pick a particular time period? Why not include the entire available plot?

And then there is the RSS satellite record that shows a rising trend of zero degree's for the last 15 years!

Why have you provided no sources for your data? That graph does not cover 15 years and it conveniently includes 1998 (an extreme ENSO) event which somewhat skews the trendline. Might be considered cherry picking.

Here is the past 15 years. A warming trend. Yes, less than expected. A point covered in IPCC 5.

One has to really ask if that is science Phage?

Yes. It is.

Did Einstein say it was extremely likely that E=MC2 or did he provide the maths to prove that E=MC2.

You know that the math which demonstrates that rising CO2 levels will produce rising temperatures is solid, right? You know too, that Einstein's theories were challenged, right? It took a while for his predictions to be be shown to be accurate.

a reply to: mc_squared

Think I just gave you 2 stars and 3 flags for that, Not Sure.



Interesting study:

A comparison between figures 1 and 2 show that for the USA and the UK the increase in the presence of sceptical voices was considerably more marked over the two periods compared to the other four countries: the USA rose from 18% to 34%, and the UK from 7% to 19%. China and France's percentages actually dropped, India's remained roughly the same, while Brazil's rose slightly from 1% to 3%.

iopscience.iop.org...


Ah... the spoils of war... ähm... austerity-cuts without alternative combined with lot's of PR-dis... ähm... information propaga... ähm... campaigns... information campaigns with educational purpose! Yes. Now I've got it, kinda tough sentence if you don't wanna get fired for stating obvious facts accidentally.
Anyway, who's gonna sway me now? Looking forward to some more TV-shows and KoolGatorAid,

have a nice Idiocracy!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Interesting study:

About how print media present the debate?

It finds that news coverage of scepticism is mostly limited to the USA and the UK; that there is a strong correspondence between the political leaning of a newspaper and its willingness to quote or use uncontested sceptical voices in opinion pieces; and that the type of sceptics who question whether global temperatures are warming are almost exclusively found in the US and UK newspapers.

iopscience.iop.org...

They needed to do a study to find out that conservative press will print pretty much anything that denies warming, without vetting?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

I am watching two sides fighting about something that they will never see.

Some of us care about something other than themselves.
Some of us have children.

I have four children.
A lot of people think that flapping their lips will cool the planet.
Like the 'brilliant' act guerrilla art in Seattle, putting a piece of plastic on a sculpture... to draw attention to the problem of plastic in the ocean.
Draw attention.
Yeah.
How much attention did it get of the Asian seamen that actually are responsible for throwing the effing trash in the ocean?
Pretty much zero.
Lip service.
It accomplishes mostly nothing... other than making the hypocrite banging away on their global warming causing keyboard feel better about themselves.

a reply to: mc_squared

So basically this isn't a debatable thread.

Global warming it is and its man made. There ya go.

a reply to: butcherguy

A lot of people think that flapping their lips will cool the planet.

Some maybe.

It accomplishes mostly nothing... other than making the hypocrite banging away on their global warming causing keyboard feel better about themselves.

Does bitching about not existent carbon taxes and trading help?

Do you think constant denial that anything at all is happening is beneficial? Is denial more productive than awareness?

a reply to: Phage

Do you think constant denial that anything at all is happening is beneficial? Is denial more productive than awareness? 

They are both equally meaningless.
But you already knew that.