Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
rovermorris999 said:
The article said "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
Ho bloody ho.
Whereas back int the real world, it's been the biggest ice sheet this summer for years!"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
Ho bloody ho.
rovermorris999 said:
The article said "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
Ho bloody ho.
Whereas back int the real world, it's been the biggest ice sheet this summer for years!"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
Ho bloody ho.
airbrakes said:
Whereas back int the real world, it's been the biggest ice sheet this summer for years!
Depends on how you judge biggest. If you class 6th smallest on record as biggest then you need to fine tune your comparitive algorithms. http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice...
I love the way the daily mail report it as a 60% increase in sea ice from 2012. that ignores the fact that last years was a record low. Really poor reporting as usual.
TransverseTight said:
I love the way the daily mail report it as a 60% increase in sea ice from 2012. that ignores the fact that last years was a record low. Really poor reporting as usual.
For once I don't think that is particuraly poor reporting since it's referenced to the prediction of a continuing decrease (or disappearance) of the ice. They are not saying that there is a vast amount of ice, just that it has increased greatly from last years value.IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans causing climate change
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Wow, 3,000 pages written by 840 authors from 38 countries. That's got nothing on us!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Wow, 3,000 pages written by 840 authors from 38 countries. That's got nothing on us!
Mr2Mike said:
For once I don't think that is particuraly poor reporting since it's referenced to the prediction of a continuing decrease (or disappearance) of the ice.
Quite. This being the SCIENCE thread I think we should have no problem with the reporting that the predictions of the proposed theory have been shown to be false. That's a valid story.I am quite sure the political bandwagon will trundle on regardless, but that is what the other thread is for.
grumbledoak said:
Mr2Mike said:
For once I don't think that is particuraly poor reporting since it's referenced to the prediction of a continuing decrease (or disappearance) of the ice.
Quite. This being the SCIENCE thread I think we should have no problem with the reporting that the predictions of the proposed theory have been shown to be false. That's a valid story.I am quite sure the political bandwagon will trundle on regardless, but that is what the other thread is for.
That still looks like a downward trend to me.
grumbledoak said:
braddo said:
That still looks like a downward trend to me.
It isn't supposed to be there at all. If the predictions (and thus, the theory) were correct.braddo said:
grumbledoak said:
braddo said:
That still looks like a downward trend to me.
It isn't supposed to be there at all. If the predictions (and thus, the theory) were correct.http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Gl...
I guess in a few years the BBC will have to quote the Daily Mail...
Quote
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed
End Quote
That ending to me is an opinion leading piece designed to deceive readers into thinking that becuase sea ice hasn't disappeared entirely, that all climate prediction is wrong.
So next question from me. The latest IPPC Report is out.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG...
All other arguments aside when we know there’s a link between temperature and CO2 (up to you to decide which way that link is).
It reminded me of probably the most important question in the climate debate, can anyone convince me we don’t need to be cautious about CO2 emissions with the knowledge, and I quote directly :
B.5 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2
concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}
So we have a real fact here. Not a prediction, not a forecast, not a simulation. Not a cause-effect hypothesis. Just a measurement.
We can argue the extrapolations about paleoclimate records may be out, but then we still have recent levels which are true measurements. And they keep going up and up.
To me what it says, regardless of which way you want to play the CO2, temperature lead <-> lag scenarios, we are in uncharted CO2 level territory. There isn’t a natural variability explanation for this (sun, volcanoes etc) and the difference is caused by us as the adding up of CO2 released by burning stuff, the numbers works out. If we agree climate models can not be accurate, and that science can’t be certain, aren’t we best to at least take a cautious approach rather than a laisse-faire attitude to this knowledge?
There’s seems to be a consensus on this thread that temperature rise isn’t happening (if we start in 1998), and that if it is, it’s causing CO2 to go up. If you think the temperature is leading CO2, then don’t we still have a problem, that we can’t do anything about, if things are hotting up on their own.
Or do we hope that maybe it is us and try in vain to reduce CO2 emissions?
I guess in a few years the BBC will have to quote the Daily Mail...
Quote
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed
End Quote
That ending to me is an opinion leading piece designed to deceive readers into thinking that becuase sea ice hasn't disappeared entirely, that all climate prediction is wrong.
So next question from me. The latest IPPC Report is out.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG...
All other arguments aside when we know there’s a link between temperature and CO2 (up to you to decide which way that link is).
It reminded me of probably the most important question in the climate debate, can anyone convince me we don’t need to be cautious about CO2 emissions with the knowledge, and I quote directly :
B.5 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2
concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}
So we have a real fact here. Not a prediction, not a forecast, not a simulation. Not a cause-effect hypothesis. Just a measurement.
We can argue the extrapolations about paleoclimate records may be out, but then we still have recent levels which are true measurements. And they keep going up and up.
To me what it says, regardless of which way you want to play the CO2, temperature lead <-> lag scenarios, we are in uncharted CO2 level territory. There isn’t a natural variability explanation for this (sun, volcanoes etc) and the difference is caused by us as the adding up of CO2 released by burning stuff, the numbers works out. If we agree climate models can not be accurate, and that science can’t be certain, aren’t we best to at least take a cautious approach rather than a laisse-faire attitude to this knowledge?
There’s seems to be a consensus on this thread that temperature rise isn’t happening (if we start in 1998), and that if it is, it’s causing CO2 to go up. If you think the temperature is leading CO2, then don’t we still have a problem, that we can’t do anything about, if things are hotting up on their own.
Or do we hope that maybe it is us and try in vain to reduce CO2 emissions?
dickymint said:
braddo said:
grumbledoak said:
braddo said:
That still looks like a downward trend to me.
It isn't supposed to be there at all. If the predictions (and thus, the theory) were correct.http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...
If Bob Carter is the most senior scientific voice of that organisation I see no reason to listen to a word they say.
A layman's critique of a book of Bob Carter's:
http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Cli...
After reading the first 6 pages the 'important comments' on page 6 are telling...
Bob Carter no longer at James Cook University because he wasn't actually doing any academic work:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/09/australian-un...
http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Cli...
After reading the first 6 pages the 'important comments' on page 6 are telling...
Bob Carter no longer at James Cook University because he wasn't actually doing any academic work:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/09/australian-un...
perdu said:
Gotta feel sorry for all those little fishes swimming around with all their scales eaten away by acid.
doh!
If you haven't got anything useful to say, why bother? It just fills up the thread with white space. Some of us are trying to have a debate and learn something from people who have different opinions to us. (Although some people are probably tying to force their opinions on others too).doh!
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+A...
I find the best way to learn is not to go and talk to people who all agree on something.
FYI it the lower life forms further down the food chain that are affected, and ultimately it does have something to do with the price of fish.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff