Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
durbster said:
deeps said:
ludo said:
The problem is that we didn't design civillisations or agriculture to cope with the climate change we are likely to see as a result of fossil fuel emissions.
It appears to me that this thread is dominated by statements of true belief. You will of course be aware that at first I didn't mention any websites or give any links. Then when the dastardly CO2 footprint duo complained that I wasn't posting links, I obliged.
P.S. My original remark to ludo above is a valid one, as his remark was a matter of belief.
gadgetmac said:
deeps said:
gadgetmac said:
I think you’ll find that Loony’s comment was in response to Robinessex’s not before it.
It’ll be a tough one for you in particular to wrap your head around but a response FOLLOWS and doesn’t precede.
Thought you weren't posting here? Who brought up the BBC first?It’ll be a tough one for you in particular to wrap your head around but a response FOLLOWS and doesn’t precede.
3 or 4 people have now asked you to go away as you are hindering the development of the thread. Please do so, as we all tire of reading this kind of input on both the Politics thread and the Science thread.
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Your post sounds very much like “we have a robust understanding of our climate”. When did that happen?
Climate scientists have expected pretty much everything to happen, they have supported alarmism in both cooling and warming directions. No matter what actually happens in the future, there is a scientific theory in place to support it.
Have you got anything more than lazy, repeatedly debunked talking points copied from propaganda blogs?Climate scientists have expected pretty much everything to happen, they have supported alarmism in both cooling and warming directions. No matter what actually happens in the future, there is a scientific theory in place to support it.
Any consensus estimate on something as simple and incredibly important as predicting the start of the next ice age? Your assertion was that we understand our climate, the answer should be easy then.
Stay focused!
deeps said:
gadgetmac said:
deeps said:
gadgetmac said:
I think you’ll find that Loony’s comment was in response to Robinessex’s not before it.
It’ll be a tough one for you in particular to wrap your head around but a response FOLLOWS and doesn’t precede.
Thought you weren't posting here? Who brought up the BBC first?It’ll be a tough one for you in particular to wrap your head around but a response FOLLOWS and doesn’t precede.
3 or 4 people have now asked you to go away as you are hindering the development of the thread. Please do so, as we all tire of reading this kind of input on both the Politics thread and the Science thread.
deeps said:
ludo said:
The problem is that we didn't design civillisations or agriculture to cope with the climate change we are likely to see as a result of fossil fuel emissions.
It appears to me that this thread is dominated by statements of true belief. ludo said:
Kawasicki said:
We also didn’t design them to cope with another ice age.
There is no reason why we should, given there is no chance of it happening on a multi-centennial timescale. There is however good reason to expect substantial warming as a result of fossil fuel GHG. deeps said:
Wow. The last 3 posts truly demonstrate the level of true belief around here. I'm actually a little shocked, I expected more than this primary school level of commentary, presented as fact.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If humans burn fossil fuels Earth's climate must warm. Scientists agree, the science is settled.
It's presented as a plausible well understood mechanism that explains the obs. You haven't got anything like a credible argument against it except to wave your hand in the air and claim 'it's just natural' - now there's true belief.CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If humans burn fossil fuels Earth's climate must warm. Scientists agree, the science is settled.
kerplunk said:
It's presented as a plausible well understood mechanism that explains the obs. You haven't got anything like a credible argument against it except to wave your hand in the air and claim 'it's just natural' - now there's true belief.
Can it be proven that any warning is not natural ?PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
It's presented as a plausible well understood mechanism that explains the obs. You haven't got anything like a credible argument against it except to wave your hand in the air and claim 'it's just natural' - now there's true belief.
Can it be proven that any warning is not natural ?ludo said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
It's presented as a plausible well understood mechanism that explains the obs. You haven't got anything like a credible argument against it except to wave your hand in the air and claim 'it's just natural' - now there's true belief.
Can it be proven that any warning is not natural ?if you cannot fully discount natural warming how can you assume that CO2 is the driver when it is one of the least lightly candidate.
PRTVR said:
ludo said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
It's presented as a plausible well understood mechanism that explains the obs. You haven't got anything like a credible argument against it except to wave your hand in the air and claim 'it's just natural' - now there's true belief.
Can it be proven that any warning is not natural ?if you cannot fully discount natural warming how can you assume that CO2 is the driver when it is one of the least lightly candidate.
You are missing the point. Science cannot absolutely prove or disprove anything. It just isn't how science works. The climate science we do know about gives no reason to suggest that the warming is natural, that is the best that science can do. If you don't understand why, there are plenty of good introductory textbooks on the philosophy of science.
hairykrishna said:
PRTVR said:
if you cannot fully discount natural warming how can you assume that CO2 is the driver when it is one of the least lightly candidate.
What's driving the natural warming?PRTVR said:
hairykrishna said:
PRTVR said:
if you cannot fully discount natural warming how can you assume that CO2 is the driver when it is one of the least lightly candidate.
What's driving the natural warming?
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
hairykrishna said:
PRTVR said:
if you cannot fully discount natural warming how can you assume that CO2 is the driver when it is one of the least lightly candidate.
What's driving the natural warming?ludo said:
Indeed. It is not as if we have no idea what causes glacial and interglacial periods, we don't just say "it's cyclical".
There are 2 energy sources. The sun and geothermal. The sun has been discounted due to the variability in TSi does not match the variability in climate. Unfortunately this is poor science. Variability in TSi would only be a first order correlation for a black body. The earth is not a black body and hence the wavelength variability maybe more relevant (we know the oceans drive the atmosphere so short wavelength variability is more important than TSi).And we do just say "it's cyclical" when it comes to Milkanovich cycles.
Jinx said:
ludo said:
Indeed. It is not as if we have no idea what causes glacial and interglacial periods, we don't just say "it's cyclical".
There are 2 energy sources. The sun and geothermal. The sun has been discounted due to the variability in TSi does not match the variability in climate. Unfortunately this is poor science. Variability in TSi would only be a first order correlation for a black body. The earth is not a black body and hence the wavelength variability maybe more relevant (we know the oceans drive the atmosphere so short wavelength variability is more important than TSi).And we do just say "it's cyclical" when it comes to Milkanovich cycles.
kerplunk said:
No we don't - Milankovich cycles are well defined, and the effect on climate well substantiated so it isn't JUST a handwave to 'cycles' when we refer to them.
It was a joke KP but don't worry about it (along the lines of cycles are not an explanation except when they are) . durbster said:
This sounds very much like, "I don't understand it therefore nobody does".
The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
that is b/s.The climate has behaved pretty much exactly as we expected it to. Clear proof that we do understand it.
"The scientists were so shocked to find the change, Khazendar said: "At first we didn't believe it. We had pretty much assumed that Jakobshavn would just keep going on as it had over the last 20 years." However, the OMG mission has recorded cold water near Jakobshavn for three years in a row.
The researchers suspect the cold water was set in motion by a climate pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which causes the northern Atlantic Ocean to switch slowly between warm and cold every five to 20 years. The climate pattern settled into a new phase recently, cooling the Atlantic in general. This change was accompanied by some extra cooling in 2016 of the waters along Greenland's southwest coast, which flowed up the west coast, eventually reaching Jakobshavn.
When the climate pattern flips again, Jakobshavn will most likely start accelerating and thinning again.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=735...
so they were shocked something happened, couldn't believe it even. yet they think it will most likely do what they expect when a perfectly natural phenomena occurs again.
they also "suspect" where the cold water came from. why only suspect ? colder water in that region only comes from one place, the arctic. the recent reduction in sea ice extent, particularly in winter leads to rapid cooling of previously insulated surface waters. there seems to be some big puzzle regarding what drives the amo when the nao and ice extent perfectly explain how it works. more ice over the polar regions prevents heat escaping to space, arctic waters warm up, ice extent reduces allowing glaciers to speed up flow to sea. combination of increased radiation to space and increased flow of ice, that melts in the warmer waters, resulting in cooler water that ends up in polar currents being distributed around arctic and nearby regions.
oh, and a link to someone that predicted what is happening, maybe he should get a job with nasa.
In Vanishing Ice Most Likely All Natural (transcipt here) I argued that Greenland’s glaciers would soon stabilize and sea ice in the Barents Sea would soon recover based on trends in the transport of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic. Although a one-year recovery is much too short a period from which to derive reliable projections, it is exactly what natural climate dynamics predict.
Based on GRACE satellite gravity estimates (illustrated in the graph below on the left) and hydrographic measurements (graph on right), Greenland’s lost ice has correlated best with the pulses of warm Atlantic water that entered into the Irminger Current that flows to the west around Greenland, delivering relatively warm water to the base of Greenland’s marine terminating glaciers. (Temperatures of the Irminger warm pulse are represented by the numbers graph on the right.) Marked by the red arrow most of Greenland’s ice loss has happened in the southeast region, precisely where the brunt of warm subsurface waters entered the Irminger Current. Accordingly Kahn (2014) reported between 2003 -2006 that 50 % of the total ice loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet occurred in southeast Greenland, and thinning and calving of just 2 glaciers (marked HG) and (KG) accounted half of that loss. Thinning and calving are driven primarily by submarine melting. Although NOAA highlights Greenland’s surface melt rates, Rignot (2009) report that rates of iceberg discharge and rates of “submarine melting are two orders of magnitude larger than surface melt rates.”
http://landscapesandcycles.net/Will-Greenland-Begi...
i trust the above meets the arbitrary definition of "science" imposed by certain posters ?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff