• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,010
Come on G2G- that study can't be valid. The U of Waterloo is clearly in the the pay of the Oil industry....

[sarcasm]
 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
Good2Golf said:
Okay, I'll play along.  How about a peer-reviewed paper by a Waterloo University professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B?

The only issue I take with that article is the claim of no warming since 2002. That and the claim that there is an inconclusive correlation between co2 and temperature rise, again claims which do not match up to others findings.

Overall though, it's nice to see that even the deniers are posting articles which conclude that AGW is a reality. Intentional?  ::)
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,910
Points
1,360
cld617 said:
The only issue I take with that article is the claim of no warming since 2002. That and the claim that there is an inconclusive correlation between co2 and temperature rise, again claims which do not match up to others findings.

Overall though, it's nice to see that even the deniers are posting articles which conclude that AGW is a reality. Intentional?  ::)

Of course AGW has formed part of the overall rise in global temperatures.  The whole point of the 1980's targeted reduction in CFCs, culminating in the Montreal Protocol, was to reduce the proportion of GW that was caused anthropogenically.

So, to help you with the "no warming since 2002" thing, how about we look to a recognized organizations specializing in atmospherics, say the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and go to its reference page for "Climate at a Glance" for Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies page and set 1880 to the present for its search parameters: (ref: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global)

We get:

201401-201412.png


So, if Dr. Lu did the same thing as I would, statistically (levels of confidence, error bars, etc...,) his statement that from 2002 onwards, and really about 1999-2000, the temperature has (within error margins) remained relatively unchanged at 0.6ºC above the mean, seem to hold ground.

Perhaps you see something other than a flattening trend for the above-mean temperature anomaly?  ???

Regards
G2G
 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
I see a trend upwards that is consistent with the rise over the last 150+ years. It's not as aggressive as it has been in the past, but as we're continually setting new record annual highs, it's not dismissable as unchanged. With China exploding as the world's industrial superpower with poorly enforced regulation, it'll be interesting to see how the trend carries forward.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,559
Points
1,060
It also trended down for the 150 years before that, so in net change, aren't we back to roughly 1700s temperatures?
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
With any luck, it'll soon be warm enough for Scandinavians to begin farming on Greenland again, like it was when temperatures were at a normal level.
 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
PuckChaser said:
aren't we back to roughly 1700s temperatures?

No, we're not. We're significantly higher.

Loachman said:
With any luck, it'll soon be warm enough for Scandinavians to begin farming on Greenland again, like it was when temperatures were at a normal level.

With any luck, you'll find a new argument to regurgitate that hasn't been discussed and debunked ad nauseam in this very thread.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,559
Points
1,060
cld617 said:
No, we're not. We're significantly higher.

Signifcantly higher than when the global mean temperature was 73F? Just for some reference, we're at 60F right now. You're cherry picking 150 years out of a planet who has 4.5 BILLION years of climate history, including an ice age, and a time when the polar regions were not covered with ice at all.

Here's that pesky, climate denier science organization, NOAA, breaking down your alarmism:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

Do we need to get away from carbon pollution? Sure do, look at the smog in China/India. Are we going to do it in 20 years or else the planet cooks itself like an egg? Sure as hell don't. We need to move away from fossil fuels more due to air quality than we do because some crazy super storms like in the movies are going to destroy us.
 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
PuckChaser said:
Signifcantly higher than when the global mean temperature was 73F? Just for some reference, we're at 60F right now. You're cherry picking 150 years out of a planet who has 4.5 BILLION years of climate history, including an ice age, and a time when the polar regions were not covered with ice at all.

Care to share a reference that puts the average temperature of the globe at 7 deg Celsius higher 300 years ago than it is today? Best of luck in that search.

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm pointing out the correlation between the advent of fossil fuels and temperature increases never before seen without massive natural disaster.

Here's that pesky, climate denier science organization, NOAA, breaking down your alarmism:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

Congrats on your ability to improperly discern information. If you think that the earth being hot through natural forces before through natural cycles excuses the rapid shifts that man has caused in the last few dozen decades, then I hate to break it to you, but you're an idiot. Are you this incompetent when it comes to understanding another field of science which relies heavily on an understanding of adaptation too with evolution, or do you simply chose to reject it as well?
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,559
Points
1,060
cld617 said:
but you're an idiot.

Isn't that just typical, resort to personal insults instead of debating the science. You're either completely out of arguments, or blinded by the halo glow of Al Gore and David Suzuki's collective angelic ideas.

Yep, we sure are warmer in the past 11,000 years. Equally true, is that the Earth has been significantly warmer in the past and thrived. The "we're dead in 20 years" crowd really doesn't have a leg to stand on. We're not going to do anything, other than invading China/India, to reduce emissions to near pre-industrial revolution levels. They are growing economies that cannot afford to piss money away at dubious "green" technology.

I'll put this to you: Would you support us cancelling all wind/solar power projects, and replace them (along with coal) with nuclear/natural gas plants as an interim measure before better technologies emerge through proper time spent on research? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are simply a fossil fuel/G20/Globalization hater, that cannot be appeased by anything that resembles the "establishment", as long as those coal-powered factories in China still make your latest iPod or Starbucks coffeemaker.
 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
PuckChaser said:
Isn't that just typical, resort to personal insults instead of debating the science.

I've spent plenty of time discussing the science. However it's all too often rejected because it doesn't conform to the latest news article you and people like you read on forbes or whatsupwiththat. Go back and see how many sources I've referenced throughout the last dozen or so pages, then compare that to how many were met with a counter-argument. It's a waste of time when the likes of you would rather falsely interpret heartland institute funded bullshit than to actually discuss the findings of real academic bodies.

Yep, we sure are warmer in the past 11,000 years. Equally true, is that the Earth has been significantly warmer in the past and thrived.

Your inability to understand that the argument "we've been warm in the past" is not a valid one is why you earned the title idiot. The issue is the speed in which temperature is changing, not that change is occurring. You want to discuss science? Understand the very basics of this topic and then maybe it'll be worthwhile. Until then, carry on relying on your own interpretations.

I'll put this to you: Would you support us cancelling all wind/solar power projects, and replace them (along with coal) with nuclear/natural gas plants as an interim measure before better technologies emerge through proper time spent on research? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are simply a fossil fuel/G20/Globalization hater, that cannot be appeased by anything that resembles the "establishment", as long as those coal-powered factories in China still make your latest iPod or Starbucks coffeemaker.

Considering the success of renewable energy sources in countries like Denmark, no I'm not willing to cancel it. Nuclear is a viable carry-over alternative for the next century, however the efforts need to be made towards truly renewable sources. What you call "piss money away at dubious "green" technology", is actively being used to power the homes of millions. The only one here stuck in their ways is the one who refuses to accept that is already a success.

I'll get off your lawn now, try not to have a stroke.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,559
Points
1,060
cld617 said:
I'll get off your lawn now, try not to have a stroke.

Couldn't resist the ad hominem attack, could you?

By dubious "green" technology, how much carbon is produced for the manufacture of a solar panel? How about all the oil required to keep a wind turbine working? All the metal fabrication to make those blades is staggering. Not to mention the efficiency just isn't there to wholesale change to "green" tech. Take a look at the US numbers of Levelized Cost of Electricity, Solar/Wind is staggering compared to NG/Nuclear, but the green lobby is pushing solely for geothermal/Solar/Wind as the only viable option. I wonder why that is? Are they creating themselves a market for their technology? Do they have a personal interest in the profitability of these companies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,010
Cld,

I wonder if you would care to comment on the concept of Energy Return on Investment (EROI).

This article (not from the Heartland Institute) seems to convincingly indicate that you:

A. Never get your net energy returned to you using only solar and wind

B. Cannot run a modern industrialized civilization on pure solar and wind. Nuclear and hydro seem to be your best bet.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

This is why I am sceptical of AGW. The "energy" solutions seem laughably unrealistic. In short- I would rather take my chances with weather (which, may or may not go the way you seem certain), than watch our entire civilization "de-powered".

Notice how I did that without one single personal insult directed at you, even though I disagree with you?
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PuckChaser said:
Isn't that just typical, resort to personal insults instead of debating the science. You're either completely out of arguments, or blinded by the halo glow of Al Gore and David Suzuki's collective angelic ideas.

Yep, we sure are warmer in the past 11,000 years. Equally true, is that the Earth has been significantly warmer in the past and thrived. The "we're dead in 20 years" crowd really doesn't have a leg to stand on. We're not going to do anything, other than invading China/India, to reduce emissions to near pre-industrial revolution levels. They are growing economies that cannot afford to piss money away at dubious "green" technology.

I'll put this to you: Would you support us cancelling all wind/solar power projects, and replace them (along with coal) with nuclear/natural gas plants as an interim measure before better technologies emerge through proper time spent on research? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are simply a fossil fuel/G20/Globalization hater, that cannot be appeased by anything that resembles the "establishment", as long as those coal-powered factories in China still make your latest iPod or Starbucks coffeemaker.

You're quoting claims that have been proven wrong over and over again. Don't you think that the hundreds of scientific institutions around the world that agree AGW is a reality have access to these papers that you're posting? Do you really think you found some nugget of truth here?

cld617, I've back and forth with these guys a hundred times. They'll find one or two papers which seem legit, written by people someone at the Heritage Institute usually, even though the papers themselves have been debunked by mainstream science a thousand times over.

I've posted numerous links to legitimate scientific websites that are dedicated to debunking this stuff and it doesn't matter. The "denial" camp has changed their argument so many times, and some of the arguments over years would seem to cancel each other out. First it was that warming wasn't even happening, then it was the volcanoes, then it was solar activity.

There are mountains and mountains of data that show AGW is a reality, and the data is only getting stronger. I mean, this link is to the very same site Puckchaser referenced  ::)  I guess he didn't bother to see what the NOAA's actual official position on AGW is. This is under the FAQ section for god's sake.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions#hide6

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause. Thousands of weather stations worldwide—over land and ocean—have been recording daily high and low temperatures for many decades and, in some locations, for more than a century. When different scientific and technical teams in different U.S. agencies (e.g., NOAA and NASA) and in other countries (e.g., the U.K.'s Hadley Centre) average these data together, essentially the same results are found: Earth's average surface temperature has risen by about 1.5°F (0.85°C) since 1880.[15]

The primary cause is that, over the last 200 years, human activities have added about 500 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, increasing the abundance of this heat-trapping gas by about 40 percent. Today, humans add about 70 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every day. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1800 to about 398 ppm today.[19] Today's carbon dioxide levels are unusually high; much higher than at any other time in the last 800,000 years. The warming influence of heat-trapping gases was recognized in the mid-1800s.[14]

Additionally, many other lines of evidence confirm that our world has warmed over multiple decades:

    Sea surface temperatures have increased.[2]
    Air temperatures aloft are increasing, according to weather balloons and satellites.[2]
    Birds are migrating earlier and their migration patterns are changing.[10]
    Plants are blooming earlier in the spring.[10]
    Fish species are migrating northward and toward cooler, deeper waters.[10]
    Overall, glaciers are melting and spring snow cover is declining in the Northern Hemisphere.[2]
    Greenland's ice sheet—which holds about 8% of Earth's fresh water—is melting at an accelerating rate.[2]
    Mean global sea level is rising.[2]
    Summertime Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly in both thickness and extent.[11]



 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Good2Golf said:
Of course AGW has formed part of the overall rise in global temperatures.  The whole point of the 1980's targeted reduction in CFCs, culminating in the Montreal Protocol, was to reduce the proportion of GW that was caused anthropogenically.

So, to help you with the "no warming since 2002" thing, how about we look to a recognized organizations specializing in atmospherics, say the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and go to its reference page for "Climate at a Glance" for Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies page and set 1880 to the present for its search parameters: (ref: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global)

We get:

201401-201412.png


So, if Dr. Lu did the same thing as I would, statistically (levels of confidence, error bars, etc...,) his statement that from 2002 onwards, and really about 1999-2000, the temperature has (within error margins) remained relatively unchanged at 0.6ºC above the mean, seem to hold ground.

Perhaps you see something other than a flattening trend for the above-mean temperature anomaly?  ???

Regards
G2G


Again, on the VERY SAME SITE, their official position on climate change:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability

Third U.S. National Climate Assessment Key Findings

    Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.
    Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities.
    Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.
    Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.
    Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water.
    Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change.
    Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.
    Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century.
    Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, wellbeing, and ways of life.
    Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed.
    Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life.
    Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences.

To view the full report, visit the third National Climate Assessment’s interactive website at nca2014.globalchange.gov. For a synopsis of the key findings from the Assessment, see the Highlights report or download the 20-page Overview booklet.


None of us are specialists here, so I'm not sure why anyone here thinks their analysis of scientific data is relevant at all. Not when you can easily find the official position of any institution on climate change.

 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,010
Kilo_302 said:
You're quoting claims that have been proven wrong over and over again. Don't you think that the hundreds of scientific institutions around the world that agree AGW is a reality have access to these papers that you're posting? Do you really think you found some nugget of truth here?

cld617, I've back and forth with these guys a hundred times. They'll find one or two papers which seem legit, written by people someone at the Heritage Institute usually, even though the papers themselves have been debunked by mainstream science a thousand times over.

I've posted numerous links to legitimate scientific websites that are dedicated to debunking this stuff and it doesn't matter. The "denial" camp has changed their argument so many times, and some of the arguments over years would seem to cancel each other out. First it was that warming wasn't even happening, then it was the volcanoes, then it was solar activity.

There are mountains and mountains of data that show AGW is a reality, and the data is only getting stronger. I mean, this link is to the very same site Puckchaser referenced  ::)  I guess he didn't bother to see what the NOAA's actual official position on AGW is. This is under the FAQ section for god's sake.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions#hide6

If we are all unreconstructed Neanderthals, too stupid to see the truth, why do you continue to bother?

What drives your near evangelical zeal to convert us?
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SeaKingTacco said:
If we are all unreconstructed Neanderthals, too stupid to see the truth, why do you continue to bother?

What drives your near evangelical zeal to convert us?

Evangelical zeal is something that pertains to faith. I don't have faith that climate change is occurring, I understand it is based on a few factors:

1. The sheer weight of all the scientists/scientific institutions that have arrived at this conclusion. I'll post this for what must be the 100th time:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

2. Understanding that the dominant industries of our time, indeed our whole way of life are at risk if we accept this conclusion leads me to believe that it is perfectly plausible, if not likely that the "debate" we are having is due to a deliberate misinformation campaign that has been extremely successful. This is well documented in numerous articles, documentaries that I have posted here before too. Heck, I posted this only a few days ago. What, to your way of thinking, explains the about-face described at the link below? Do you honestly believe that it's more likely that ALL of the scientific institutions listed at the link above are in on some "green conspiracy?" Or that they've all been fooled? Nonsense.

http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/

3. The understanding that this has become a political debate, not a scientific one. This is never more obvious than when looking at the sources the "deniers" seem to consistently reference. They're never anything close to being academic. In fact they're usually blogs that reference fraudulent studies or cherry-pick real science. In the world of real science you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone that will conclusively say, "this isn't due to human activity." See points 1 and 2.

To still be a denier in the face of all the evidence we have suggests it is YOU who suffers from "evangelical zeal."




 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,036
Points
940
SeaKingTacco said:
What drives your near evangelical zeal to convert us?

Kilo_302 said:
Earth's average surface temperature has risen by about 1.5°F (0.85°C) since 1880.
Less than ONE DEGREE temperature change in 135 years...  :panic: 


            :soapbox:      It's so obvious  SKT; you [and your "denier" ilk  ~spit~ ] just don't get it.





[Personally, I'll stick to Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption for my preachin' ]
 
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Journeyman said:
Less than ONE DEGREE temperature change in 135 years...  :panic: 


            :soapbox:      It's so obvious  SKT; you [and your "denier" ilk  ~spit~ ] just don't get it.





[Personally, I'll stick to Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption for my preachin' ]

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that sets us back. It's clear you're not scientifically literate enough to understand your own statement. Less than 1 degree in 135 years (some say it's 0.8 degrees in 100 years) is 10 times the rate of any warming in the past, and it nicely coincides with our own carbon emissions. Actually, because we understand that there is a time lag between carbon emissions and noticeable change in climate (around 40 years mainly because the oceans act as a heatsink) it's even easier to make the direct link between carbon emissions and climate change.

We know that carbon absorbs infrared radiation. This has been demonstrated in labs for over a hundred years. Can anyone explain why carbon (its molecular structure doesn't change) would behave any differently in our atmosphere?

Can any of you explain the precise correlation between carbon emissions (and corresponding PPM in our atmosphere) and the temperature increase in the last 100 years?

You would be overturning some basic building blocks of science if you could present a plausible case for why the above is incorrect.
 
Top