Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I would reckon sea ice a hundred years ago was less than now simply due to the fact that so many explorers were pushing for the northwest passage.

None of them succeeded and the Franklin expedition all died. Yet the Northwest and Northeast passages have been open for weeks at a time over the last two or three years, so much so that people have been traversing them in ordinary yachts. In fact, last year a bunch of guys circled the Arctic ocean in a yacht.

 

In the early hours of this morning, Thursday 14 October, the “Northern Passage†crossed its own wake and reached the coast of Norway. They have successfully completed their mission: the first Arctic circumnavigation through the Northeast and Northwest Passages during one and the same season!

 

ArabiaTerra

In a normal winter the Arctic experiences approximately six months of total darkness.

 

so now the periods of daylight are changing, my god what are we to do no more long winter nights. We are doomed I tell you.

Ok, so poor phrasing from me there, mea culpa.

 

In the last few years, however, there has been unprecedented melting of the sea ice in the Arctic.

 

How do you know how much ice was there 1000 years ago? 100 years ago? Nobody does, because records are only available since 1970 something.

 

The simple fact is, if you are willing to cherry pick data over short time periods, you can pretty much make the data say anything you want it to.

 

Indeed.

You're onto it.

Anyone who says "unprecedented" is an alarmist talking through a hole in his head.

The fact that the Northwest passage has only been open in the last few years supports my point.

 

There is nothing new in anything that you have said; I have heard most of it before.

All I am saying is that a scientist keeps an open mind; you seem to have an almost religious fervour about this, to the point where you cannot admit doubt.The next couple of decades may provide some certainty; in the meantime there are other matters of concern which are not conjecture.

Scientists go with the data, all the data. They don't deliberately miss out the data which disagrees with their hypothesis and cherry-pick that which does, which, as I've shown above is exactly what the author of that piece you posted did. Why don't you address that instead of attacking me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last few years, however, there has been unprecedented melting of the sea ice in the Arctic.

 

How do you know how much ice was there 1000 years ago? 100 years ago? Nobody does, because records are only available since 1970 something.

 

The simple fact is, if you are willing to cherry pick data over short time periods, you can pretty much make the data say anything you want it to.

 

Indeed.

 

The fact that the Northwest passage has only been open in the last few years supports my point.

 

How do you know what conditions were like in the NW passage 1000 years ago?

 

Anyway, I found this, which proves that recent warming is NOT "unprecedented"

 

A recent study by Peter Chylek et al. (2006) put all of these Greenland temperature records together in one place (Figure 8 ), and commented:

 

Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995–2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I found this, which proves that recent warming is NOT "unprecedented"

 

A recent study by Peter Chylek et al. (2006) put all of these Greenland temperature records together in one place (Figure 8 ), and commented:

 

Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995–2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.

That's hardly conclusive, crofter. The current warming period didn't start in 1995 and end in 2005, it started in the 50's and is ongoing. Just because you can find a random decade somewhere in the temperature record where temps rose faster doesn't prove anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I found this, which proves that recent warming is NOT "unprecedented"

 

A recent study by Peter Chylek et al. (2006) put all of these Greenland temperature records together in one place (Figure 8 ), and commented:

 

Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995–2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.

 

FB: It was you who said "unprecedented". Do you now admit that there is some doubt about that exact point?

 

 

" Just because you can find a random decade somewhere in the temperature record where temps rose faster doesn't prove anything."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

AT.

I'm sure you're aware of my dislike at entering your alternative world but I had to drop by and congratulate you on your tenacity. You've succeeded in Hijacking the OP's thread and exploited it to you're own end.

You do have a human side after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern yachts cross the atlantic in a matter of days AT where as a hundred years ago it could take them months. so a present day navigation of the northwest passage proves sod all. but the fact that explorers thought it possible (whether succesful or not) a hundred or more years ago says a great deal.

 

But you carry on living your life as if the world is going to end tommorrow and I will live mine like each day might be my last.

But one thing is for damned sure there will be others spouting the same doomsday crap long after both you and I are worm food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's hardly conclusive, crofter. The current warming period didn't start in 1995 and end in 2005, it started in the 50's and is ongoing. Just because you can find a random decade somewhere in the temperature record where temps rose faster doesn't prove anything.

 

It proves that this statement by you is WRONG!

 

In the last few years, however, there has been unprecedented melting of the sea ice in the Arctic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, it's real:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

 

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct

 

Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK

 

This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'

 

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests....

 

Lead author Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University, US, explained that by looking at surface temperatures during the most recent ice age - 21,000 years ago - when humans were having no impact on global temperatures, he, and his colleagues show that this period was not as cold as previous estimates suggest.

 

"This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought," he explained.

 

By incorporating this newly discovered "climate insensitivity" into their models, the international team was able to reduce uncertainty in its future climate projections.

 

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7C to 2.6C (3.1F to 4.7F).

 

That is a much tighter range than the one produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2.0C to 4.5C.

 

The new analysis also reduces the expected rise in average surface temperatures to just over 2C, from 3C.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603

 

 

Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513

 

A sentence worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news if it's true, but remember, this is just one paper. It will have to be confirmed preferably from other lines of evidence.

 

Even if true though, it only means we get some extra time to tackle the problem, not that the problem goes away.

 

It seems from here that one of the reasons they have got such a low sensitivity is the use of a very simple climate model, one which has already known inaccuracies. Also, given the changes seen at the end of the last ice age, this paper implies that while the temperature rise may be lower, it may still cause drastic changes in our climate.

 

In short, if Schmittner et al. are correct and such a small temperature change can cause such a drastic climate change, then we may be in for a rude awakening in the very near future, because their smaller glacial-interglacial difference would imply a quicker climate response...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I wis watching Cat doin the BBC weather tonight so I hiv maybe got this wrong. She said that it was 12 C in Altnahara today (quite close in global terms) whereas last year on this date it wis -16 which is a 28 degree rise. Now I canna be bothered pittin together a graph here but that means 40 C next year. Brilliant, but the following year we are talking 68 degrees. We’re all gonna die . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...