Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Welcome back good people.
We're going to try this again.
This time there are a few other people involved who have the tools to try and ensure we all keep the debate on topic.
As has been said on the previous threads we'd like posters to keep to the topic and not descend into the often witnessed adhom or insult approach.
Comments or criticism of the thread belong here
Off topic or inflmatory posts will hopefully disappear before you even get chance to read them.
Let's see how we get on this time around.
We're going to try this again.
This time there are a few other people involved who have the tools to try and ensure we all keep the debate on topic.
As has been said on the previous threads we'd like posters to keep to the topic and not descend into the often witnessed adhom or insult approach.
Comments or criticism of the thread belong here
Off topic or inflmatory posts will hopefully disappear before you even get chance to read them.
Let's see how we get on this time around.
Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 26th April 15:28
Now if only we could hook up all this pedaling to some king of generator perhaps all our energy needs could be met...
linky
AMAP said:
Ice in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is melting dramatically faster than was earlier projected and could raise global sea levels by as much as 1.6 metres by 2100, says a new study.
The study released on Tuesday by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) said there is a "need for greater urgency" in fighting global warming as record temperatures have led to the increased rate of melting.
The AMAP report said the correspondending rise in water levels will directly threaten low-lying coastal areas such as Florida and Bangladesh, but would also affect islands and cities from London to Shanghai. The report says it will also increase the cost of rebuilding tsunami barriers in Japan.
"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," said the report.
"In the future, global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 metres to 1.6 metres by 2100 and the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution," it added.
The rises had been projected from levels recorded in 1990.
Time to buy a lot of land on Greenland? Might be a good investment for the grand children...The study released on Tuesday by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) said there is a "need for greater urgency" in fighting global warming as record temperatures have led to the increased rate of melting.
The AMAP report said the correspondending rise in water levels will directly threaten low-lying coastal areas such as Florida and Bangladesh, but would also affect islands and cities from London to Shanghai. The report says it will also increase the cost of rebuilding tsunami barriers in Japan.
"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," said the report.
"In the future, global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 metres to 1.6 metres by 2100 and the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution," it added.
The rises had been projected from levels recorded in 1990.
linky
Guam said:
I can see it now "Catholicism, the world true eco religion" 
Steady on 
some of us are putting up with the big 'C' on a day by day basis here. Still at the end of the day it's all God's intention/fault, right?ETA: Thinking on if we start a 'climate change the religious debate' thread, have we got all bases covered?
Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 10th May 20:54
nelly1 said:
Forget the Creationists and the Vatican...
The Climate Rappers are now onside.
See here...
You've got to love the lyrics:-
WORD!
Jesus fThe Climate Rappers are now onside.
See here...
You've got to love the lyrics:-
WORD!
king aitch Christ that is appalling.I mean we all know that Brian Cox was singing in D-Ream and still just about manages to come across as a fairly sensible physicist. But what the hell are this lot playing at?
Are these people '4-real'? Aye?
W.T.F?
Can we expect the science of climate change to be decided in a Eurovision Song Contest soon?
Getragdogleg said:
Just out of pure curiosity, are there any figures on the amount of movement "up and down" of coastal land masses
Well, if we are to believe some of the reports surrounding the recent Japanese earthquake where the whole of Japan has allegedly shifted 8 meters and the polar axis shifted some quarter of a degree then I would say 'yes'.How accurate those figures are I have no idea.... what difference it makes on a global scale I have even less idea, but it would/should make you think if there is a globally measurable change due to an earth quake that is measurable in terms of the climate data that we are supposed to believe wtf?
I mean as some people are coming out and saying that we need to reduce our carbon emissions to zero by 2020, one big volcanic eruption could surely lead to a need to quadruple our carbon emissions just to prevent the fuel in our windymill-free home diesel generators from freezing.
I just want to reiterate that people are aware that when it's f
king cold in this part of the world that is because the wind isn't blowing in from the Atlantic and we are stuck under a Scandinavian high pressure weather system and all the windymills stop.Facefirst said:
Ali G said:
As has been discussed to death - the absorption bands of H2O and CO2 in the 15 micron region overlap.
There is, however, a lot more H2O in the lower troposphere, which means that CO2 has a much reduced ability to do its thing.
That's not to say that CO2 cannot absorb 15 micron raditiation here - just that its not going to receive much (and there's only 0.039% to start with).
And in any case, raditiative transfer is competing with convection in these regions anyway as a mechanism for transfering heat into the atmosphere.
And what mechanism is there for increasing the H2O content of our atmosphere....?There is, however, a lot more H2O in the lower troposphere, which means that CO2 has a much reduced ability to do its thing.
That's not to say that CO2 cannot absorb 15 micron raditiation here - just that its not going to receive much (and there's only 0.039% to start with).
And in any case, raditiative transfer is competing with convection in these regions anyway as a mechanism for transfering heat into the atmosphere.
Facefirst said:
The Excession said:
Every kindergarten kid that knows the Incy Wincy rhyme can tell you it's the sun that dries up all the rain.
Reported: You should be setting an example, not engaging in childish taunts.If you have a point to make regarding those mechanisms then make it. Otherwise please refrain from tit for tat throw away comment posts that could equally be classified as childish comments.
Facefirst said:
I see what you are getting at, but I really do think that when you look at the evidence the mainstream position is better supported than the valid skeptical ones.
Some of the stuff on here - about no warming, CO2 not being important etc - isn't even espoused by the most ardent skeptic and seems to be the preserve of the blogsphere. The valid skeptical hypothesis - various solar forcings etc - seem to fall down under scrutiny.
I look at it two ways:
1. IF CO2 can and is warming the planet, what would we expect to see? Acidification of the oceans? More CO2 in the atmosphere? A change in the radiation / energy budget? A change in diurnal temp ranges?
2. Can any other hypothesis account for ALL of the observations?
There are certainly some valid skeptic arguments out there - I don't think any scientist would argue that we fully understand the climate system yet - but all of the alternative hypothesis that I have read about seem to have fatal flaws.
OK, another way to look at it. Imagine you were just starting out on GW and wanted to learn about it from the journals - what conclusion would you draw?
ok, putting the odd smart arse comments aside, and I'll make a public apology here for quoting Incy Wincy as respected scientific principle.Some of the stuff on here - about no warming, CO2 not being important etc - isn't even espoused by the most ardent skeptic and seems to be the preserve of the blogsphere. The valid skeptical hypothesis - various solar forcings etc - seem to fall down under scrutiny.
I look at it two ways:
1. IF CO2 can and is warming the planet, what would we expect to see? Acidification of the oceans? More CO2 in the atmosphere? A change in the radiation / energy budget? A change in diurnal temp ranges?
2. Can any other hypothesis account for ALL of the observations?
There are certainly some valid skeptic arguments out there - I don't think any scientist would argue that we fully understand the climate system yet - but all of the alternative hypothesis that I have read about seem to have fatal flaws.
OK, another way to look at it. Imagine you were just starting out on GW and wanted to learn about it from the journals - what conclusion would you draw?
If CO2 were warming the planet, then I'd like to see CO2 levels rise before temperature.
Now regardless of any claimed positive feedback where CO2 supposedly warms the planet which causes more out gassing of CO2 which causes more warming ad infinitum...
Do any of you remember the demonstration of a nuclear chain reaction where there were a hundred mouse traps loaded with two rubber bungs in a sealed (perspex) container? Throw in one more bung and the whole lot go off.
To me that is the way CO2 emissions have been (very wrongly) portrayed. One more molecule of CO2 and the planet is going to burn.
What did Gordon Brown say? How many days to save the planet before cataclysmic run away global warming?
Junk, utter junk; without a shred of empirical data to support it.
ETA: Found a video here only they did it with ping-pong balls
Way too much giggling at the end for my liking. I'm not giggling one small bit about the debacle of being told that CO2 is causing a run-away rise in global temperatures, nor that taxing people for these emissions is going to change any thing in any measure what so ever.
Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 19th July 17:57
Facefirst said:
A gwaff is just a picture, and as one of my former physics teachers was often pulled up-on with 'scuse me miss where did that come from because I've just been reading abc, xyz and mlp and it doesn't agree with what you are telling us' - I'd like a bit of background.
Facefirst said:
The Excession said:
Just a small point, but that picture refers back to real climate, no problem with that per-se, but could you please also paste a link to an article or paper please?
A gwaff is just a picture, and as one of my former physics teachers was often pulled up-on with 'scuse me miss where did that come from because I've just been reading abc, xyz and mlp and it doesn't agree with what you are telling us' - I'd like a bit of background.
The link to the paper is on the page on RC.A gwaff is just a picture, and as one of my former physics teachers was often pulled up-on with 'scuse me miss where did that come from because I've just been reading abc, xyz and mlp and it doesn't agree with what you are telling us' - I'd like a bit of background.
That's fine, but what about people who arrive in twenty days time when that link isn't available from page one?
[quote]
Facefirst said:
I also note that you have only asked me to provide direct refs to my graphs so far. I look forward to you asking other posters to do the same.
Indeed so do I - in fact I have an email from one of the other mods on this thread asking for exactly the same treatment to all posters.There are a couple of other people trying to moderate these threads too now - non of us are perfect, but we are trying our best.
Today it seems that I got left with the short straw, and rightly as you ask, people should be posting with citation.
There's one point that I would like to make regarding this topic and that is that generally no one is here to, start an argument, fall out, nor upset anyone, nor demean, nor get one up on anyone else.
I'd like to think we are all just trying to get to the bottom/top of this subject.
Again, please everyone (me included), let us keep it civil and look at the science.
Thinking on now, may be we could also start a Climate Change - The Slanging Debate thread?
jshell said:
Interesting read, they seem to be glossing over the forthcoming minimum to warn about the decades-away re-emergence!
Indeed and couple this with the Earth's continually weakening magnetic field it looks like we are in for some interesting times.(I heard that the field is so weak in equatorial parts of the Atlantic that when Hubble passes through they have to shut down a heap of on board systems to protect them)
turbobloke said:
'Buy Damart and candles' still applies.
I know this is the science thread, but what are people's gut feeling on energy shortages this coming winter. Say we get another month of minus teens temperatures or worse, do we think the lights might actually go out a-la California a while back?"Our research confirms the observed link between solar variability and regional winter climate..." says UK MET Office....
But hey, the world is still getting warmer I s'pose....
But hey, the world is still getting warmer I s'pose....
powerstroke said:
warmist wkers !!! Im sick of there self indugent smug dead end pointless agenda
Gore the bigest one of them all the hipcritecal con artist fk them before they fk us I say put them to work cleaning toilets or something else that would help not hinder mankind the stupid egg head tossers
I'm glad to see you're not sat on the fence, but you're not doing yourself any favours posting in the manner seen here.kers !!! Im sick of there self indugent smug dead end pointless agendaGore the bigest one of them all the hipcritecal con artist f
k them before they fk us I say put them to work cleaning toilets or something else that would help not hinder mankind the stupid egg head tossersTread softly please.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff