"The World Is Warming Faster Than We Thought"

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: grumpy64

Climate has always been changing everywhere, but they try to sell it as man made now. They just pray on people thinking that those changes are caused by humans.

Yes I have always subscribed to this line of thought. But over the past couple years I have seen what I think have been sudden changes in climate in this area. And our weather bureau has admitted to 'smoothing' rainfall and temperature figures- in other words lying. Why would they do this? I do not believe it is getting hotter but it is getting dryer and the authorities have admitted to lying about it. I was going to start a thread on this as they are obviously trying to cover this up.

a reply to: Mianeye

What you pass along as your own observation bears more weight.

The science of modeling the climate is where my doubts lie. I believe the truth of the matter is the 'scientists' don't have the answer and they are being pressured to come up with something which factors into current political agendas. Consistency of measurement has had doubt cast upon it repeatedly. I think those doubts are well grounded.

When the activity of the Sun is factored into the scientific equation I tend to devote my full attention to what 'real science' has to say. Outside of solar influence, it would take major volcanic activity to influence global climactic change. That has been the general opinion of well-grounded (read that as less-financially motivated) science as opposed to consensus science.

For me, the truth is that 'nobody knows' ... and the best they've done is create an awesome topic for debate.

-Cheers

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: grumpy64

Climate has always been changing everywhere, but they try to sell it as man made now. They just pray on people thinking that those changes are caused by humans.

Climate is 100% climate even if humans are involved, it's difficult to separate what is the actual cause as nature just change to new weather systems, which are 100% nature.

What we should be looking at is the acceleration of climate change, what is causing that acceleration, and there humans comes in as they could very likely be the cause of that acceleration, but no definitive proof is found yet, but looking at humans "terraforming" of earth is a highly suspicious clue.

Good idea, but does limit people playing to those who have money. That's the flaw there.

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: Ghost147

We need a big Casino of Science, where people bet on worldly events, and an impartial observer uses precise measurements to see who the winner is.

That's the problem with this article. It should make predictions, but there are none. The oceans are warming in the southern hemi-sphere, so how much of a decrease of antarctic sea ice should we expect to see in satellite photos? Place your bets!
I'm so sick of the back and forth on this, without substance. Science should make predictions, and we should all be able to see whether they're right or wrong.

edit: And every one without actual money on the table in the science casino, predicting future events, should be ignored.

a reply to: grumpy64

Yeah think about this though.
Imagine if every time you filled your car, you actually just poured the petrol onto your own land. How long before your land is totally useless for anything?
Now imagine everyone else doing that too.

Every tree that ever was in a swamp, over hundreds of millions of years; burning all of that in a few hundred years is going to change things... It took 100's of millions to get the resource there, it's being sucked out in 100's of years... *shrug*
Makes sense to me... Yes of course climate change is a natural phenomena, just like when the sun rises the planet gets hot, it gets hot in greenhouses too, and it gets hot when you light a fire... Radiation is also a natural phenomena, why would Fukushima be bad with tiny amounts of radioactive material comparative to how much oil we burn, and greenhouse gases be fine... Humans do things...

a reply to: Snarl

I agree that economy and political reasons is a big problem in this debate, but that is unfortunately the human way of acting today, everything is made in to economy, and it's blurring everything.

I tend to look away from the economy in this, and just look at the science and the environment i'm living in.

originally posted by: Mianeye

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: grumpy64

Climate has always been changing everywhere, but they try to sell it as man made now. They just pray on people thinking that those changes are caused by humans.

Climate is 100% climate even if humans are involved, it's difficult to separate what is the actual cause as nature just change to new weather systems, which are 100% nature.

What we should be looking at is the acceleration of climate change, what is causing that acceleration, and there humans comes in as they could very likely be the cause of that acceleration, but no definitive proof is found yet, but looking at humans "terraforming" of earth is a highly suspicious clue.

But even if humans have influence on it, it could be well be very little and the earth might well be able to cope with it without a problem.

So even if humans have influence on it, how big is it actually and how big must it be to actual being so serious the earth can handle it ?

I`m all for research towards the subject, but not for all the wild assumptions used for political gains which are being made all the time. Lots of assumptions, exaggerations and a constant flux of proof about how they were wrong have been seen and nothing more.

a reply to: pandorashope

Yes, that is a good point. Everything we do involves heating up something. We cook, we burn stuff to make electricity, we heat stuff up to make just about everything, our cars burn fuel, we light massive fires, we release radiation into the atmosphere, we fly aeroplanes and giant rockets- we burn stuff. Surely this is going to have some sort of effect eventually.

The only way I can think of that it doesn't make sense, is if there's a vested interest to deny it and confuse people.
Like if you sell oil or cars or petroleum goods, or just wanna watch the world burn, or want to keep things much as they are for as long as possible. And then it makes perfect sense to spend a lot of money to confuse a lot of people.
Must be great for Saudi Arabia, oil producing products, etc to deny climate change.

Historical precedent exists; that cigarette is safe to smoke, smoking doesn't cause cancer, 9/10 doctors prefer x brand.

I cant believe people still deny the warming.

It is one thing to deny that it is human made. I am sceptical myself, too much confirmation bias going on imho.

But the average temperatures have been rising for quite some time now. And no it doesn't mean that all local temperatures have to rise. It doesn't work this way, one of the reasons weather forecasting is so hard.

To add to the anecdotal evidence in this thread, I've also noticed the winters becoming milder in my area over the years. The weather right know feels too warm for September/October. It has a special name around here, the closest fitting translation beeing Indian Summer I think. And it is becoming more the rule than the exception.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Worst case scenario earth ends up like venus a permanent (as far as we can tell) toxic environment hotter than Mercury despite being farther away. All scientific theory on Venus suggests it was once very earth like. Best case scenario the earth self regulates with things like massive volcano activity worldwide. Massive eruptions lower temperature by creating so much particulate in the atmosphere it blocks out the sun.

Regardless Earth is far far more durable than we are. It's very good at self regulating
My deep seated true opinion is that regardless of what happens or whether global warming is real that Earth will destroy us before we destroy Earth. I don't think we're trying to destroy her either, right?

At the end of the day the mere possibility of global warming should have us pouring money into unbiased scientific study of the issue.

Sadly like every other issue facing America the whole idea was turned completely into a polarized 2 sided issue.. Now both sides are so dead set on agenda pushing that all the science is tainted. The deniers are clearly in the wrong in that we can't affect the earth or that climate hasn't and won't change. Proving or disproving the original global warming theory has killed real science though.

Obviously this is a possibility and seems like a definite if you understand basic things about science and logic but most of the money goes into studies to prove or disprove it to or to run ads or protests.

The money should be dumped into testing out solutions to both global warming or cooling. If we had scientifically tested contingency plans we could all move on without having to have one side win.

Then again maybe having the Koch brothers scientists working on manipulating volcanoes might be a bad idea.

a reply to: Ghost147

The title (not yours I know) should have been Ocean Warming Underestimated. But even that is only half the story. The article is based on a paper published yesterday in the peer reviewed journal, Nature Climate Change. The other paper discusses findings that depths below 2km have not had measurable warming at all.

Abstract to Llovel et al paper

As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000 m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m−2 from 2005 to 2013.

Abstract to Durack et al paper

The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming1, 2, 3, 4. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data-sparse regions5, 6, 7. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

That isn't even close to what the article states.

a reply to: moebius

I can :

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months

Source

Weather changing, that`s something which I can believe, because it has happened always everywhere.

And humans having influence on it, yes, but my guess it`s not such a huge factor.

Should we think about our environment ?

Of course, but not about the pockets of people who want to make money of it.

a reply to: Ghost147
I think it's BS propoganda..
The globe AS we know it, goes from ice Age to warm age to ice Age to warm age.
21.12.2012 was just a reminder that we we're half way there, ( My beliefe )

According to Judith Curry, a climatologist, in her blog 'climate etc' those climatologists who do the weather models leave out clouds, as for the moment they are impossible to model! so the climate models are not really much use!
That lady also states in one of her blogs that the 'consensus' does not actually exist, its the news reporters, 'sexing it up' as the Brits call it.

Just realised, the souther hemisphere is going into summer now, just as the northern half tumbles into winter, so I presume the souther ocean is getting more sunlight (blasphemy) and heating up? Judith reports that the southern ocean is heating, but the lower depths are cooling, I have no idea what that means.

originally posted by: pikestaff
So that's why in Chicago to-day the cold sets a new record? and its snowing? (although this report is in the news blog 'Rantburg'

but that's because of global warming, everybody knows that in order to get colder it's got to get warmer first. and that is subject to what hemisphere your in, or that's what they would have you to believe.

please since 1970 they have miscalculated the sea temp in the southern hemisphere. never mind the countless expeditions from God knows how many countries and institutions that have gone down to study every thing imaginable down there. and everybody has been measuring the temperature wrong all this time.

hey i got this bridge....

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie

please since 1970 they have miscalculated the sea temp in the southern hemisphere. never mind the countless expeditions from God knows how many countries and institutions that have gone down to study every thing imaginable down there. and everybody has been measuring the temperature wrong all this time.

That's the first thing I thought of. 44 years is a long time for a mistake like this to go unnoticed. Why should anyone believe what any scientist says about this at this point? Why should we even believe the reports about the northern hemisphere?

If it wasn't clear to people before, it should be clear now: They don't know what they're doing. But since they have degrees and funding, well, they must be credible. Right?................

Leave mother alone. She's going to do what she's going to do regardless of what we know or don't know about her and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

a reply to: Ghost147

Hope you keep this thread updated, especially when scientists start itemizing the implications.

Thanks, F&