The Global Warming Thread

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0"]Satellite Scientist: Surface Temp Measures are More Accurate - YouTube[/ame]

You are the one being lied to by monkeys who would sell the earth for peanuts. I think before you accuse others of being herd animals, you should do some serious self reflection.

 

Wake up!

Logic and reasoning were invented by Karl Marx to destroy the USA!

 

I'm lucky enough to be friends with a prominent Professor of environmental science. A Chair in Global Challenges no less. Travels all over the world lecturing and whatnot.
I was speaking to him one time about climate change and global warming and he basically said a more accurate term would be "climate chaos". "Global warming" and "climate change" just don't fully describe what's happening.
I think there's a tendency for people to think "it being a bit warmer" isn't that much to worry about.
"Climate chaos" is absolutely something to be avoided if we can.

 

Climate chaos is scaremongering - scaremongering is not permitted in public debate - even if the scare being mongered is actually a true understanding of the situation.

 

But if we remove all the hyperbole words like chaos, the risks of climate change are still dangerous shifts in weather patterns and flooding and food shortages that will alter life across the planet. If there was even a 1% chance that this was the truth it should be on some conservative's platform to do something about it. I hope if there's an asteroid threat, nobody will sabotage that effort I really blame the Net.

 

The real problem is that chaos is not hyperbole. Changing the patterns of weather across the planet will cause chaos. Unusual and weather events can and do cause chaos.

in 2010 Unprecedented monsoon rains caused flooding of the Indus river, starting in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, spreading South through Punjab, Balochistan and Sindh.

At its worst the flood waters covered roughly one-fifth of Pakistan’s land area
18 million people were affected
1,985 people killed
12 million people’s homes were damaged or destroyed
2.2 million hectares of crops were destroyed
10,000 schools damaged or destroyed
450,000 livestock lost

And by definition as climate changes their will be more unusual weather events - more chaos.

 

Chaos is a really apt descriptor, because we really don't know what will happen. What we've essentially done is deregulate the carbon cycle - broadly speaking the Earth has carbon sinks that, before human activity, matched their input and output. For every forest fire that released carbon into the atmosphere, we had plants growing that sequestered that carbon away. This will have a metric excrement ton of side effects, many of which can accelerate global climate change. We may be at (or past) a tipping point from which there is little to no chance of recovery.

 

But recovery to what, something that never was? What exactly is the perfect 'cycle' of the past? Was that 'cycle' ever relatively static? This is I think the fundamental argument between both sides on this issue, and Robin Hood's argument is no different, he's arguing this is all perfectly regular. If you're right, humans need to engineer a solution to get back to 'there', whatever that perfect cycle of the past way. My own humble opinion is a rock could smash the Earth to pieces at any moment, so much for our 'cycles'!

The others argue there is no 'there' to get to and this is all normal cyclical activity like our friend Robin Hood. He doesn't seem to answer my questions but I'll ask him another way anyway. Robin, do you feel it's ok to be pumping gasses into the atmosphere at an astronomical rate indefinitely? Do you see any problem with that as it relates to destroying the atmosphere and life on Earth?

 

Well, we haven't gotten to them tipping points yet. Part of the problem that I have with the 'natural cycle' proponents is that I interpret their argument much less generously than you; we know about the climatological cycles of the Earth and we know that 1) Current warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate 2) that CO2 is playing a large role as an insulator and 3) that human activity has dumped a ton, well, more than A ton, but a gigantic amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 'natural cycle' argument really boils down to "LALALALALA EVERYTHING'S OK I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

I tend to think that there's no possible way to get back to a fully regulated carbon cycle, and also that we are sowing the seeds for human extinction or, at the least, the end of civilization as we are familiar with it. It will probably recover after that.

 

LALALALALALA EVERYTHING'S OK I CAN'T HEAR YOU I AM GONNA KEEP BONSAI-ING FOREVER

 

You sound like a Stephen Hawking and George Carlin fan. :jester:

 

To my mind this is not the argument. It is the argument the deniers whant to have but it it not the scientific argument that climate change is happening.

The scientific argument that climate change is happening is based on understanding how the planet absorbs and radiates energy and of how patterns of energy absorption drive weather patterns (climate).

We understand that the temperature of the planet is determined by the balance of sunlight energy arriving from space and of energy being radiated back to space as the planet cools. We know that atmospheric co2 slows cooling and traps more energy on the planet. we know that weather is driven by energy and that this extra trapped energy changes weather patterns.

We understand that there are some mechanisms that could counteract the effect of rising co2 (e.g a change in amount of energy reflected back into space due to increased ice or cloud cover) but we also understand that these mechanisms would themselves cause climate change.

Therefore the rational scientific approach is to understand that climate change is happening.

 

http://www.iflscience.com/environme...obal-average-temperatures-jaw-dropping-margin

So this is terrible news.

Unless you don't believe in science, but do enjoy all the benefits said science brings, without realising.

 

Scam info

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-deceived-about-global-warming-climate-change

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball

context, for the above post.

 

So you'll trust an internet columnist with no substantial climate science training to speak of (presumably Tim Ball would have included the PhD after his name if he had one) over 97% of the world's scientists actively researching climate change?

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

 

So he does have a PhD then?

I guess wads of cash from petrochemical companies has nothing to do with his position?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

 

His doctorate is in geology, not climate science. So while it's fair to see he has a strong grasp of the effects of the weather on the earth and changes over time (hint: GEO logy ), he's not really an expert on the weather dynamics themselves, and especially not the Sun's extraterrestrial dynamics with relation to the Earth. Mr. Ball's expertise with regards to heat doesn't seem to expand much beyond the Earth's core and other natural processes, and especially not things like pollution's effects.

Mr Ball rejects all notion that anything is wrong. It goes well beyond just climate change science, it also applies to pollution science and environmentalism, which is why it's difficult to take him seriously as an academic, his writings are heavily politically charged, and there's no real climate science to be seen in them, and especially not much support for his conclusions. Mr Ball. is truly at the fringe of climate denial junk science.

 

and you know this because your an expert at what?