Global warming Becoming More Pronounced!

[Nick]

There is enough data to currently suggest (and, I suggest, if you disagree with this, to please find a serious source for your claim) at least a 90% certainty that climate change over the last 50 years has been anthropogenic (human caused). It's never going to be 100% (as that's the nature of science), so how much do you want it to be?

Nope, I can't find a serious source for the data as the data simply doesn't exist.

But how about a bit of fundamental logic instead?

We've been recording temperatures and weather for what? the last 300 years or so? Let's be generous and say 500 years.

So, we have 500 years worth of data that says what? The Earth is getting warmer?

But, and here's the kicker, archaeological evidence clearly shows the Earth warming up and cooling down... lots of times.... Over periods of thousands of years.

What the archaeological evidence CANNOT show is what the weather was like over such a short timescale of a few hundred years.

And even if it did, no-one even has a clue as to why it happens.

So, on the more sensible timescale of eons (seeing as the Earth is already a few BILLION years old), this warmer period won't even show as a hint of blip on the temperature charts...

BUt, if you want to play it in the short term view once again I put it that there's no effect by man on global warming. Everyone is still driving their cars and burning fossil fuels but I've got 2 inches snow here... not exactly warm eh?

[[GSV]Trig]

Nick win's /end.

[[GSV]Trig]

lo Skii...

[Skii]

lo chap

was thinking of getting the BBQ out today actually...

[badass]

Well all of this snow today/last night is proof that global warming isn't happening at all.

This comment is just as valid as the first post on this thread.

[Byatt]

Nope, I can't find a serious source for the data as the data simply doesn't exist.

I'll avoid the temptation to be childish here!

But how about a bit of fundamental logic instead?

We've been recording temperatures and weather for what? the last 300 years or so? Let's be generous and say 500 years.

So, we have 500 years worth of data that says what? The Earth is getting warmer?

But, and here's the kicker, archaeological evidence clearly shows the Earth warming up and cooling down... lots of times.... Over periods of thousands of years.

What the archaeological evidence CANNOT show is what the weather was like over such a short timescale of a few hundred years.

With you so far.

And even if it did, no-one even has a clue as to why it happens.

So, on the more sensible timescale of eons (seeing as the Earth is already a few BILLION years old), this warmer period won't even show as a hint of blip on the temperature charts...

And here's where I disagree. This is, as far as we know, the most rapid warming the earth has undergone. The argument that it's a blip on the archaeological timescale actually hinders your argument rather than helping it, I feel, as it suggests that the cause is not occurring on an archaeological time scale as with previous transitions in and out of ice ages, etc.

You may argue that there is an unknown source which is causing this blip which may miraculously disappear, but I say to you that this is akin to believing in the flying spaghetti monster. We have an excellent set of climate models of the Earth, and a colossal amount of data supporting the hypothesis that warming is driven by our actions (I won't quote the 90% figure again).

If you want to say 'there are unknown causes' - well, fine, I'm just saying that I suspect many other people have had such thoughts (not wishing to belittle you here), and yet have not produced an alternative hypothesis.

I should probably clarify here that the IPCC reports take into account the known 'natural' forcing of the climate, and typically the model combining both the natural and man-made forces has made the more accurate predictions so far.

Report 3 summary for policymakers

If I was going to pick any graph to show you, I'd show you the one on page 7. It starts to get fairly hefty from there on in (predictions, as well as corroboration of the earlier reports, are here badass, if you'd only look), but that at least gives you an idea of how much we are contributing to this warming period.

BUt, if you want to play it in the short term view once again I put it that there's no effect by man on global warming. Everyone is still driving their cars and burning fossil fuels but I've got 2 inches snow here... not exactly warm eh?

Now you're just not being serious . Serious hail here.

win's (sic)

If you're going to declare victory please don't abuse the poor old apostrophe :-(

[vince]

I think that global warming made the world more and more worse. the sky becomes gray

[MadduckUK]

I think that global warming made the world more and more worse. the sky becomes gray

thats DEEP man

i think you could be getting confused with clouds... or possibly even night-time? who knows?!

[Lee H]

With global warming, the seas will be evaporated a little more than normal. This means more clouds and as some scientists reckon these will reflect back some of the heat and light from the sun - therefore probably causing the temperatures to drop a little.

I'm no scientist but I think this does sound plausable so who knows until it happens.

[badass]

If I was going to pick any graph to show you, I'd show you the one on page 7. It starts to get fairly hefty from there on in (predictions, as well as corroboration of the earlier reports, are here badass, if you'd only look), but that at least gives you an idea of how much we are contributing to this warming period.

IMHO that argument is flawed.

A scientist having previously proposed in his first report that the Earth is in the centre of the universe and that the other planets move across the sky because they all spin around us at the same speed. This model fits the past data that he have collected over the past.

People start paying attention since the earth is the centre of the universe, everything's eventually to crash into us, KILLING IS ALL OMG WERE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!1111111

After collecting some more data it seems that they are actually moving at different speeds!
he still sticks to the notion that the earth is the centre of the universe as we all know it is, so it must be something else. In report 2 he proposes a new model where the planets are actually orbiting at different speeds and the earth is spinning. Once again his model fits all past recorded data.

Shock horror, over the period of a few years people have measured the planets actually stopping and going back on themselves!
So report 2 made a load of inaccurate predictions.

Still, we KNOW that earth is the centre of the universe because we've been fed this idea by the papers for so long and MOST respected scientists agree with the "consensus view"

Model 3 is proposed with the earth being the centre of the universe and adds the principle of epicycles - that planets orbit in a circle within their orbit (its sort of like the moon orbits us, except that there is nothing that it is orbiting) this explains why they can go back on each other withing our sky. This model can fit all past data and its accuracy is proven by using 2 demonstrations of past data - one with epicycles showing the positions of the planets and the other without. The epicyles one fits all of the past data we have within the accuracy currently available to us.

The question is would you take the word of this scientist as being accurate baring in mind all of his past predictions have been way out?
Would you take it with a pinch of salt and say that instead of spending billions preparing for the sky to fall on out heads we might be better off concentrating on that which has been proven to be a problem, like localised pollution?

[dangel]

I'm no scientist but I think this does sound plausable so who knows until it happens.

He's got a point tho - isn't this just an arguement over which report people believe tho most?

[GeorgeTuk]

In my opinion we are all going to hell in a handcart! And I would blame the netcode. Its all Gamespys fault. Nerf the sun. Is not the illegal immigrants fault!? *** is done it all, Linux all the ways. Bushs fault, not in no WMDz and 9/11 waz CIAs faults!!*

There you go got a few sayings out of the way!

*May not all relate to post.

[Byatt]

The question is would you take the word of this scientist as being accurate baring in mind all of his past predictions have been way out?

Your argument works if:

1. The 'scientist' (actually 800 scientists, peer reviewed by another 2,500) has actually previously been wrong.

2. Bad science is as prevalent now as in the time of Copernicus.

3. You've got an alternative theory to explain the current rapid warming of the earth.

So, unless you've got a hold of your mythical 'all climate scientists are thickies' and 'everything the IPCC says is filthy lies' source, you think that the comprehensive process of peer review is as flawed as having the annals of scientific knowledge being forced to support a religious text () AND you can come up with a theory to replace the one you're tearing down, I think we're done here.

[Nick]

Right, time to dip my toe back in these waters again.

First off, there's a growing thought process amongst the scientific community that we're actually going about this whole thing the wrong way, which is what I was refering to in my first post.

Basically there's a couple of thought provoking points that have gained a fair whack of support and, in truth, would lend weight to the global warming theory if taken into consideration.

First, the temperature rise over given timescale: This is based on what current data we have and the acknowledgement that our current data might well show a trend in the climate warming up.

Yes, we are currently in a trend for warmer temperatures and I've heard loads of "We're supposed to be entering an ice age" but that's people being dumb and working on a human timescale...

The thing is, we have absolutely no way of knowing if this is an anomally or not. Sure, we can look back over the last 300 years and see that winters are milder etc but the problem is, we just don't know if this is a normal thing that happens on a timescale beyond our current experience.

The second point is this : Sure, we know that the global climate has changed dramatically back and forth over millenia, but we've no idea what kicks ot off, what stabilses it and what causes a reverse in temperature trends.

Yes, greenhouse gases are a major factor in trapping reflected radiation but there's far more to it than that. Sun activity,magnetic field fluctations, volcanic activity, ocean currents, deep sea crystaline methane desposits... No one knows for sure how and why the Earth warms up and cools down.

And on a personal note, think about just how massive the globe is. On a planetary scale we're actually a bit on the below average size. But on a human scale the dimensions really are at the limit of what your average Joe Bloke can imagine.

Now it's well documented that ocean borne algae are the main oxygen producing plants on the planet.

So, if we're pumping all this CO2 into the atmoshere, why aren;t we seeing massive blooms of algae? And I'm not talking about the odd instances we get each year, I'm talking about permanent mats of the red and blue algae...

Next, why haven't the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by any measurable amount? Surely if there's one way to scare the entire population and get them onside with combatting global warming not to mention PROVING everything that's being said, then producing figures showing the CO2 increasing would be it?

And on a final note. I don't buy ANYTHING the politicians are saying... they're only getting green becuase it'll keep them in power (or so they think)... They were happy enough to ignore and not invest in greener power sources for bloody years, so why the sudden turn about? Because it's where they think the votes are...

[Byatt]

First off, thanks for a well written, well reasoned post, I've only a small amount to add to it.

Right, time to dip my toe back in these waters again.

First off, there's a growing thought process amongst the scientific community that we're actually going about this whole thing the wrong way, which is what I was refering to in my first post.

Basically there's a couple of thought provoking points that have gained a fair whack of support and, in truth, would lend weight to the global warming theory if taken into consideration.

First, the temperature rise over given timescale: This is based on what current data we have and the acknowledgement that our current data might well show a trend in the climate warming up.

Yes, we are currently in a trend for warmer temperatures and I've heard loads of "We're supposed to be entering an ice age" but that's people being dumb and working on a human timescale...

The thing is, we have absolutely no way of knowing if this is an anomally or not. Sure, we can look back over the last 300 years and see that winters are milder etc but the problem is, we just don't know if this is a normal thing that happens on a timescale beyond our current experience.

OK, absolutely fine with this. What I would like to say is that it doesn't matter, scientifically at least, whether it's an anomaly or not - the hypothesis of it being man made is really agnostic of it. Scientists are merely trying to explain their observations with a model, as always.

The second point is this : Sure, we know that the global climate has changed dramatically back and forth over millenia, but we've no idea what kicks ot off, what stabilses it and what causes a reverse in temperature trends.

Yes, greenhouse gases are a major factor in trapping reflected radiation but there's far more to it than that. Sun activity,magnetic field fluctations, volcanic activity, ocean currents, deep sea crystaline methane desposits... No one knows for sure how and why the Earth warms up and cools down.

I should point out that I think all but one of those is considered in the 'natural forcing' section of the ipcc stuff I keep harping on about. (List here)

And on a personal note, think about just how massive the globe is. On a planetary scale we're actually a bit on the below average size. But on a human scale the dimensions really are at the limit of what your average Joe Bloke can imagine.

Umm, yes. I don't quite see where you're going with this bit, sorry - I will agree that it is difficult for people to comprehend the notion of global climate and all the ramifications/permutations of it changing though.

Now it's well documented that ocean borne algae are the main oxygen producing plants on the planet.

So, if we're pumping all this CO2 into the atmoshere, why aren;t we seeing massive blooms of algae? And I'm not talking about the odd instances we get each year, I'm talking about permanent mats of the red and blue algae...

CO2 isn't all algae need for growth, you also need nitrogen (more specifically nitrates) based stuff - their equivalent of protein. I'd guess the supply of this has remained steady, and thus, no eutrophication.

Next, why haven't the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by any measurable amount? Surely if there's one way to scare the entire population and get them onside with combatting global warming not to mention PROVING everything that's being said, then producing figures showing the CO2 increasing would be it?

As far as I can work out from a very overtired glance at this, it is increasing. I will say, however, is that the effort put into persuading people that climate change is occurring in terms they understand has been rubbish.

And on a final note. I don't buy ANYTHING the politicians are saying... they're only getting green becuase it'll keep them in power (or so they think)... They were happy enough to ignore and not invest in greener power sources for bloody years, so why the sudden turn about? Because it's where they think the votes are...

I'm inclined to agree. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm

[Sneaky King]

Rubbbish. It snowed on my birthday once many years ago. On February 16th.