The Science is settled. Or was.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
From my limited knowledge on the subject it has always been likely that global warming or climate change could cause another ice age.
The desalination of the northern atlantic due to melting polar ice would cause an interruption of the gulf stream causing an ice age in europe.
I heard this years ago.

On this case your knowledge is not limited.
The mere fact you are using real , established science proves it.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: network dude

Contrary to your right wing delusional superstitions, the scientists at NASA have a different consensus:

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

How many times are you going to use that very much debunked "scientific consensus" fallacy ?
Your knowledge is apparently at least 10 years behind ,

a reply to: network dude

The First Step to Wisdom is to Admit to Yourself You Know Nothing , then Proceed from there .


Note to Climate Scientists ......

a reply to: network dude

What I am here to do is explain why I feel we may not know every damn thing, as we have been told previously. Remember "the science is settled"? I do.

The causes of glacial periods have never been fully understood. It is known that the Milankovich cycles seem to have an effect but just exactly how that works has never been "settled." Nor is it now. But this study provides some clues about it. In order for the planet to cool that much, CO2 has to leave the atmosphere. How does that happen? According to the computer model, a lot of it gets trapped under the ice.

These physical changes alone are sufficient to explain ~40 ppm atmospheric CO2 drawdown—about half of the glacial–interglacial variation.

www.nature.com...

It's time to admit that global warming is a theory, not a fact, and there may be more to this than we previously thought.

Or not. Increasing CO2 concentrations seem to fit the bill quite well. And we're talking about large changes over short period of time, not long time periods.

That 40 ppm talked about in the study? With all the carbon we've added (and are adding), it wouldn't make much of a dent.

What this suggests is that it’s a feedback loop. As the temperature drops, less carbon is released into the atmosphere, which triggers more cooling.”

news.uchicago.edu...

Warming has its own set of feedback loops. CO2 seems to be what starts it all. We weren't around to study what causes glacial periods but we are around now to see first hand what a rapid increase in CO2 concentrations does.

a reply to: Sillyolme

A regional cooling event is not the same thing as a glacial period.

One is regional, the other is global.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Could somebody tell me what taking money off everybody does to the environment. It's not money that's needed, it's actions and not by the man in the street. And man being the minor problem to the Earth as the land mass (which man lives on) is only roughly a third of the Earth which man himself only takes up a small proportion, why are we so arrogant to believe that we are the governing factor in the Earths natural fluctuating climate.

Thank you! I've been saying the same thing for a long time and thinking I'm the only one that believes this. The planet has been warming and cooling as long as it has existed. Thinking we have somehow managed to cause more change than nature seems extremely arrogant and unfounded to me, especially since I think NASA itself said the sun's activities were actually to blame for warming and cooling cycles.

As far as all of those sources go, follow the money.

originally posted by: Phage
Or not. Increasing CO2 concentrations seem to fit the bill quite well. And we're talking about large changes over short period of time, not long time periods.

That 40 ppm talked about in the study? With all the carbon we've added (and are adding), it wouldn't make much of a dent.

What this suggests is that it’s a feedback loop. As the temperature drops, less carbon is released into the atmosphere, which triggers more cooling.”

news.uchicago.edu...

Warming has its own set of feedback loops. CO2 seems to be what starts it all. We weren't around to study what causes glacial periods but we are around now to see first hand what a rapid increase in CO2 concentrations does.

So if we have ALL the knowledge, as you suggest with the "or not", then we can predict the climate perfectly and know the future on this aspect. If that ins't true, please explain where our knowledge falls short.

a reply to: network dude

The science is in flux. It's always in flux or we are doing it wrong.

That said, my largest concern is mass migration due to changing weather patterns and sea level rise. IF (and come on, it's still an "if") we do see significant sea level changes, we could be looking at hundreds of millions of climate "refugees" over the next century. I don't believe humans are built to tolerate that kind of stress.

Even small scale economic refugees are a huge "tipping point" problem in our country for example (good or bad, right or wrong). I don't think Colorado would adapt to even more Californians on that kind of scale, anyway.

a reply to: network dude

If that ins't true, please explain where our knowledge falls short.

The problems lie in two primary categories.

The first is what is known as internal variability, mostly caused by the way the oceans absorb and release heat. ENSO and the NAO for example. We aren't real good at predicting things like this as yet. But the reason they are called internal is because they represent temporary redistributions of heat. Over a period of a few years the ocean may absorb more atmospheric heat due to changes in wind patterns. But that heat doesn't go away. When the patterns revert, the heat is transferred from the ocean back to the atmosphere. El Nino is a good example. It shows as spikes in the overall warming trend. A very hot year (like 2016) followed by some cooling. But the cooling doesn't return to where it was before because the climate system is retaining more and more heat. El Nino was not strong this year, but we are on track to have another very warm year, possibly second to 2016. The trend continues.

The second category is in the assumptions about radiative forcing. Guesses about how much stuff we put into the atmosphere (both aerosols and greenhouse gasses) and about natural things like volcanic eruptions. But unless we drastically reduce (or increase) emissions, or unless there is a dramatic change in volcanic activity, the temperature predictions are fairly good. Who knows, maybe a giant meteor will hit us. That would probably cool things down.

There is a great deal we don't know about climate, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about climate. Studies such as the one in your OP, while not directly related to the current situation, do have much to offer. That computer model found that it is possible there is a feedback effect whereby increasing Antarctic sea ice may cause increased oceanic uptake of CO2. This is important. Perhaps a loss of sea ice could produce another feedback effect. This is something that can be used to better our current understanding and computer models which project the effects of warming. We know that one result of ice loss is decreased albedo. Perhaps it can also reduce the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2.

We do know that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause the climate system to retain heat. That is settled.

a reply to: Phage

thanks for taking the time to explain all that. It sounds like what you said agrees with what I said. We don't have all the information. Have a nice weekend.

a reply to: network dude

It's time to admit that global warming is a theory, not a fact, and there may be more to this than we previously thought. Much like life on other planets. We just don't know. So attack the messenger if you feel froggy, but at the end of the day (in about 30 years) when things aren't all on fire, and you are looking for your winter coat, remember this thread.

Why are you still trying to make it look like you're not wrong? It's as if you believe that somehow you will look bad if you agree (at this late date) that there's a problem we should be addressing

While you save face - the planet burns. New data is coming in from literally everywhere

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

If there is a 'consensus', then it isn't true science.

Consensus = politics.

Consensus means that people agree

What you just said - now, that was political

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude

It's time to admit that global warming is a theory, not a fact, and there may be more to this than we previously thought. Much like life on other planets. We just don't know. So attack the messenger if you feel froggy, but at the end of the day (in about 30 years) when things aren't all on fire, and you are looking for your winter coat, remember this thread.

Why are you still trying to make it look like you're not wrong? It's as if you believe that somehow you will look bad if you agree (at this late date) that there's a problem we should be addressing

While you save face - the planet burns. New data is coming in from literally everywhere

LOL, bring on the DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PLANET IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!!!!

It seems those claims and others fell a bit short. I'm sorry if I choose to beleive that we aren't quite in control of all the knowledge yet and hold out hope that this is a natural cycle and we can destroy ourselves with warfare as originally intended.

And believe me, my ego won't mean a whole lot if you are right, and I am wrong, and we all burst into flames in a few years, only to have our charred remains cooled by the ever advancing sea.

I look at my grandkids and want them to live the childhood I was able to. Only every now and then, contemplating the nuclear apocalypse and the rest of the time, worrying about how to build the next tree fort. I hope you get what you wish for, so long as you don't wish to be right so bad that the doom is your dream.


ETA, and yes, new data is in the OP.

a reply to: network dude

We are currently in the middle of a glacial period. They will return however it appears do to global warming we are extending the time period of their return.

He will do a good job of explaining where are climate is currently at in relation to our solar system. And the effect we have had on the climate.

a reply to: network dude



A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire

From your OP:

Now, I'm not a scientist, and I don't know much, but I have come to understand that there is a giant amount about a lot of things that we don't know. And if we waltz around as if we are superior and omnipotent, thinking that we know all about this, and we are going to shame the world into fixing it by transferring wealth, we aren't helping anyone or anything.

Your reply to Phage's last post (which acknowledged nothing about his last post except for the fact that he wrote one):

thanks for taking the time to explain all that. It sounds like what you said agrees with what I said. We don't have all the information. Have a nice weekend.

So, there you have it. You believe it's arrogance to assume we have the ability to recognize there's a problem, even if we don't understand absolutely everything about the problem - and until we do we should do nothing? Even as you admit you know less than nothing about any of it

Have a nice rest of your weekend network :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

you aren't linking climate change with poor forest management, coupled with poor water management, are you? That would be a bit wrong.

But Phage offered information as he always does. And if you read his posts, he isn't going against what I said, which is that we aren't in control of all the information yet, and I hold out hope that new data might show that we aren't able to completely destroy the planet in 200 years.

Feel free go continue to hope for a firey death. I sure as hell can't stop you.

a reply to: network dude

and I hold out hope that new data might show that we aren't able to completely destroy the planet in 200 years.

Strawman. The planet will go on existing until the Sun goes red giant.

But while you're at it, you can hope for that giant meteor to cool things down. Wouldn't do much for humans and other living things but Earth will continue.

Because that's about the only other option. Other than sudden and extreme volcanic activity. Or a sudden and extreme change in our behavior. But that's hard. And what's in it for me? I'm old. Who cares what happens after I die?

There are a whole lot of humans on the planet. Humans as small groups don't deal well with change. Humans by the millions do less well. But humans are adaptable, given enough time.

a reply to: Phage

I'm ready for a sudden change. What do I do to get around? Got some new fuel? nope. Well, I guess I could send some money to Paris, would that help?

The outrage is a bit premature. Perhaps not because of the impact, but because of the fix. There isn't a fix. But who knows. Maybe things will change as quickly as they did before, due to some unforeseen circumstance.

a reply to: network dude

you aren't linking climate change with poor forest management, coupled with poor water management, are you? That would be a bit wrong.

If you are - then that would be hilarious. But, maybe you're right - maybe the Feds should be vacuuming the state of California like the Trumpster demands. Watering it too while they're out there

But Phage offered information as he always does. And if you read his posts, he isn't going against what I said, which is that we aren't in control of all the information yet, and I hold out hope that new data might show that we aren't able to completely destroy the planet in 200 years.

I'm not the one who is not reading Phage's posts. He said more than you're willing to acknowledge

Willful ignorance is more frightening than run of the mill ignorance. While ignorance may be bliss - it's still nothing to be proud of

More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’

A new study by 11,258 scientists in 153 countries from a broad range of disciplines warns that the planet “clearly and unequivocally faces a climate emergency,” and provides six broad policy goals that must be met to address it.

The report is a stark departure from recent scientific assessments of global warming, such as those of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in that it does not couch its conclusions in the language of uncertainties, and it does prescribe policies.

But relax - and create a bigger safe space inside your head Dude. I'm sure they were all paid off by Soros

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I hope you aren't allergic to straw.

Why can't you just discuss what I said, instead of what you project on me? I don't discount warming. It's happening, more in some places, less in others. I get that.

Until you can show me a model, that accurately shows what will happen due to the climate's changing, then there is a good chance your model is missing some data. Even the great and close to omnipotent Phage admits that there are complex factors that we may not know about yet. Those are the one's I speak of.

And lastly, even if I sold all my worldly belongings, and moved to a commune which was based completely on living green, the world would still be in the same boat it is now.

When an alternative fuel is discovered that has no emissions, we can quickly phase out all the petrol based engines and make the kind of impact needed to reverse course. (if indeed cutting carbon emissions is the key to reversing the warming trend)

Why do you hate cows? (see, that's a strawman)