Global warming

[danielsangeo]

Um, I know that. But, didn't you say "And that there is peer-reviewed evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it"? You say that there is peer-reviewed evidence. I want to see it.

[Michael Archer]

I looked back at the posts; I didn't say there was dissenting peer reviewed evidence.

[danielsangeo]

Then what did you mean by "And that there is peer-reviewed evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it"?

[Michael Archer]

I looked at all my previous posts; unless I'm blind, I don't think I ever said there was "peer-review evidence".

[ProHypster]

Hi, dropping in to help, Page 4, third to last post, July 4.

 

That's fine, I can accept that.

 

Just keep in mind that quantity of evidence is not the same thing as veracity of evidence i.e. just because it's lopsided, doesn't make it true. And that there is peer-reviewed evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it.

 

Also that climate change denial is not remotely the same as evolution denial. The supporters of the latter rely on the use of arbitrary claims.

 

Good night. I will continue discussing the implications and whatnot.

[BTGBullseye]

Hi, dropping in to help, Page 4, third to last post, July 4.

 

That's fine, I can accept that.

 

Just keep in mind that quantity of evidence is not the same thing as veracity of evidence i.e. just because it's lopsided, doesn't make it true. And that there is peer-reviewed evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it.

 

Also that climate change denial is not remotely the same as evolution denial. The supporters of the latter rely on the use of arbitrary claims.

 

Good night. I will continue discussing the implications and whatnot.

Just looks like a typo of a "." instead of a ",", and a mistakenly capitalized "And".

[Michael Archer]

Alright, so I was mistaken.

 

Here. That's a picture derived from their researches. Click on any photo and it will take you to an entire scientific paper with an abstract and everything. It's about the Medieval Warm Period--a phenomenon that the climate cultists dismiss as a negligible factor.

 

EDIT: BTG, the capitalization was a stylistic choice. It wasn't a mistake.

[BTGBullseye]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

 

Thought I'd revive this thread... Been seeing/hearing quite a few comments around concerning 'global warming' and 'climate change' in relation to CO² output...

[ThePest179]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

 

Thought I'd revive this thread... Been seeing/hearing quite a few comments around concerning 'global warming' and 'climate change' in relation to CO² output...

 

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source.

[BTGBullseye]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source.

Are the sources provided in the article not to your liking for some reason, or are you just acting like a petulant child for no reason?

[ThePest179]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source.

Are the sources provided in the article not to your liking for some reason, or are you just acting like a petulant child for no reason?

 

What sources? I couldn't verify them at all.

[BTGBullseye]

You couldn't verify that people say things when asked in interviews? You couldn't verify that the studies exist? You couldn't verify that the people exist? You couldn't verify that the article exists?

 

Try looking at these quotes...

 

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail

If you don't believe that someone said something reliable to this media outlet, why should you believe any articles ever released anywhere regardless of content, or for that matter anything you don't experience first-hand... Heck, why not go all the way and not believe your senses can ever be reliable in any situation, because if you do enough drugs they stop working right.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

 

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

 

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

 

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

Great, now I'm going through and quoting the whole damn article that you obviously refused to read.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

 

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

 

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

 

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

 

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

 

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

 

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

[ThePest179]

snip

 

The source that they predominantly used was Met Office. This is whatr they said about Climate Change:

 

There's overwhelming and growing evidence that the warming is due to vastly increased - and still increasing - quantities of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

 

The most important greenhouse gas, in that it has the strongest greenhouse effect, is water vapour. It increases in concentration as the atmosphere warms. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has increased, but there's no reason for this scale of change other than the increase in temperature.

 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are both important greenhouse gases, which have a 'forcing' effect (they increase the effect of warming). Their increase in concentration is mainly caused by emissions from human activity. However, there are also potentially large secondary effects, for example decreased carbon storage due to reduced forest growth or the potential release of large amounts of methane from permafrost, caused by raised temperatures.

 

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically - by about 38% (as of 2012) - since the Industrial Revolution. As we continue burning fossil fuels and other activities, the amount of CO2 will continue to rise. This means the extra CO2 will absorb and emit more and more of the Earth's outgoing radiation, and this will further warm our climate. As the atmosphere warms, the amount of water vapour it holds also increases - which further adds to the warming effect.

 

Methane has a strong greenhouse effect, but it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about a decade. CO2 lasts for about 100 years or more, meaning it has a very long time to build up and affect our climate. Some of the CO2 in our atmosphere was emitted before World War I.

 

Cutting down forests, one of the major natural storage 'sinks' for carbon, is further increasing the imbalance between the CO2 we emit and the planet's capacity to re-absorb it.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change/why

 

What I cannot verify is that the claims made in the Daily Mail are the claims expressed by Met Office. They also didn't even bother to cite any of their evidence, to even give a date.

[BTGBullseye]

What I cannot verify is that the claims made in the Daily Mail are the claims expressed by Met Office. They also didn't even bother to cite any of their evidence, to even give a date.

Date of the article was 29 January 2012... You can easily determine exactly what information they were referring to from that, if you really wanted to, instead of demanding that I do all your research for you.

[ThePest179]

Date of the article was 29 January 2012.

 

I am inattentive.

 

You can easily determine exactly what information they were referring to from that, if you really wanted to, instead of demanding that I do all your research for you.

 

The article was made in 2012, and yet Met Office has not yet changed the statement I quoted?

[BTGBullseye]

The article was made in 2012, and yet Met Office has not yet changed the statement I quoted?

2 years isn't much for a government run entity... I would be surprised if information is updated before the 5 year mark.

[Wabdit]

Stefan Molyneux brought on someone with a different take on this.

 

He believed there is in fact man-made global warming, but that it's a positive thing, because apparently the carbon emissions helped prevent what would otherwise have been both a global cooling and because he believed that there would've been fewer plants today due to the obvious nature of plant respiration.

 

I don't know myself. Video of it is over here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3XlooigupM

[Templar Knight]

Stefan Molyneux brought on someone with a different take on this.

 

He believed there is in fact man-made global warming, but that it's a positive thing, because apparently the carbon emissions helped prevent what would otherwise have been both a global cooling and because he believed that there would've been fewer plants today due to the obvious nature of plant respiration.

 

I don't know myself. Video of it is over here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3XlooigupM

 

IDK about that either. Because by that argument, if the super volcano beneath Yellowstone were to go off, the Earth's temperature would go up several degrees, not down several degrees like it has in the past whenever major eruptions have occurred.

 

Now arguably there is a fine balance to maintaining temperature, that's why I believe terra-forming will one day be possible just by finding a suitable mix of gases for each planet and maintaining them in ways to create an environment to sustain life. And there is a point in that carbon emissions in the shortrun would boost temperatures.

 

I'm not particularly worried about Global Warming or Climate Change anymore though. I feel that we'll find a way to adapt to conditions, and the world won't end just because no more ice is on it, its existed without any ice on it before, and it's existed as a snowball planet before. The only question will be how will we adapt to changing conditions.

 

I think we'll end up trying to find a way to directly control the Earth's climate through more advanced controls (it'll be sci-fi levels where you can just push a button and suddenly the Earth becomes uninhabitable or some shit like that, but I think that is where it will go, especially if space agencies actually want to colonize Mars or other planets, it'll be good practice for those)

[pachiderm]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201709

[kerdios]

Here's a bit I call "20 years of Global warming deniers fail"