Arguments about climate change

Ibis, you question if the elite have concluded that the Earth can not sustain the growing population. I thought that everyone has concluded that the Earth can not sustain a growing population

cactus flower wrote:As far as I remember from the IPCC reports, they are aiming to keep the rise down to 2 degrees, and human society has no experience of life on the planet at 3 or more degrees higher than at present?

It was 2ºC warmer back in Neolithic times according to this page of this book

.. maybe we could take another degree or two?

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:As far as I remember from the IPCC reports, they are aiming to keep the rise down to 2 degrees, and human society has no experience of life on the planet at 3 or more degrees higher than at present?

It was 2ºC warmer back in Neolithic times according to this page of this book

.. maybe we could take another degree or two?

Quite possibly. I don't think it has been tried before though.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:As far as I remember from the IPCC reports, they are aiming to keep the rise down to 2 degrees, and human society has no experience of life on the planet at 3 or more degrees higher than at present?

It was 2ºC warmer back in Neolithic times according to this page of this book

.. maybe we could take another degree or two?

The obvious problem with that kind of comparison is that it simply compares the temperatures without considering how long they took to get there. A two or three degree rise over the next couple of millennia might not be an issue, since plants and their associated ecosystems would have some change of readjusting. The problem is we're looking at that kind of rise inside a century. It's the difference between bending something slowly into a new shape, and snapping it quickly.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:As far as I remember from the IPCC reports, they are aiming to keep the rise down to 2 degrees, and human society has no experience of life on the planet at 3 or more degrees higher than at present?

It was 2ºC warmer back in Neolithic times according to this page of this book

.. maybe we could take another degree or two?

The obvious problem with that kind of comparison is that it simply compares the temperatures without considering how long they took to get there. A two or three degree rise over the next couple of millennia might not be an issue, since plants and their associated ecosystems would have some change of readjusting. The problem is we're looking at that kind of rise inside a century. It's the difference between bending something slowly into a new shape, and snapping it quickly.

Agreed. Plus we have to assume that global warming will continue even if we were to stop dead in terms of emissions.

Maybe we can argue about youngdan's worldview somewhere else? He doesn't accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change - fair enough, I hope he's right. Arguing about the reality of the conspiracy theory he proposes, though, has no actual relevance to climate change, and is the rabbit hole down which every online discussion of climate change disappears.

This thread I think started with a post about someone who is a sceptic of climate change theory. I think youngdan shares his views.
Perhaps we could have a parallel thread that assumes the 900 scientists reporting to the IPCC are probably right and work from there?

That is not true because not only do I not believe in global warming but I believe the globalists are using the fear generated by global warming to give the likes of the UN laws to mandate us. Now when the effects of the trade deals are coming home to roost they want to ignore them. It all ties together and I am still waiting to be told where the money goes if Ireland is fined 200 million Euros for exceeding it's carbon allowance. The best I have seen is some poster on P.ie saying it does not matter where the money goes. Now they want us to believe that warming has stopped till 2015. Who can believe this .

cactus flower wrote:This thread I think started with a post about someone who is a sceptic of climate change theory. I think youngdan shares his views.

Fair enough - but this is actually a theory about New World Order conspiracy theories. Climate change just falls neatly into the pigeonhole marked 'stuff the elite are doing to us'. The scientific merits of the case are completely ignored, since they can simply be assumed as made up - all that is in question is exactly why the elite are playing the conspiracy the way they are.

cactus flower wrote:Perhaps we could have a parallel thread that assumes the 900 scientists reporting to the IPCC are probably right and work from there?

It's been so long since I discussed climate change except in the terms youngdan offers that I don't even know what I'd talk about any more.

Here is where you'll find the economic discussion that developed from this thread. It's not a clean break, but it's the best I can do.

Thanks Kate P, excellent. I think I'll just pop this post back in here.

youngdan wrote:
Ibis, you question if the elite have concluded that the Earth can not sustain the growing population. I thought that everyone has concluded that the Earth can not sustain a growing population

I am not arguing with you about this, youngdan. The Pentagon predict and are undoubtedly preparing for more resource wars and there are no great signs of preparation to rescue and relocate the millions who are living just above sea level. If we want something different to Hurricane Katrina x 100,000 we will need to make sure it happens. So far as I can see, the only body that might be capable of co-ordinating this is the UN.


Last edited by Kate P on Mon May 05, 2008 11:43 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Splitting thread)

The hurricane season that year was paticularly severe with about 13 big ones and I think 2 catagory 5s. Despite predictions the following season was one of the quitest with I think 3. Yesterday a cyclone killed a lot but these have always happened all through history but the tv camera wasn't there. Lets see how many huricanes we have this year and if any of them get to cat 5 at landfall.

Two words: Trend, and average:

NOAA: The number of severe storms has significantly increased worldwide since 1969. The most destructive hurricanes - category 4 or 5 - have nearly doubled in number over the last 35 years from 10 a year, on average, in the 1970s, to an average of 18 a year since 1990. - Sources: studies funded by the National Science Foundation and published in Nature and Science magazines. The most recent studies were conducted by researchers at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology and by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

2005 holds the record and 2006 and 2007 were quiet compared to it. There were only 2 last year which could be a record low for all I know. I am talking about Atlantic huricanes. So I await this season to see if the monster storms that some expect will arrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

youngdan wrote:2005 holds the record and 2006 and 2007 were quiet compared to it. There were only 2 last year which could be a record low for all I know. I am talking about Atlantic huricanes. So I await this season to see if the monster storms that some expect will arrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

And then you can draw a line using those 4 years as data? What conceivable use would that be?

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:2005 holds the record and 2006 and 2007 were quiet compared to it. There were only 2 last year which could be a record low for all I know. I am talking about Atlantic huricanes. So I await this season to see if the monster storms that some expect will arrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

And then you can draw a line using those 4 years as data? What conceivable use would that be?

They could be used as a point on a graph of world weather from 1900 to 2010.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:2005 holds the record and 2006 and 2007 were quiet compared to it. There were only 2 last year which could be a record low for all I know. I am talking about Atlantic huricanes. So I await this season to see if the monster storms that some expect will arrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

And then you can draw a line using those 4 years as data? What conceivable use would that be?

They could be used as a point on a graph of world weather from 1900 to 2010.

That would be sensible, but not what youngdan appears to be proposing.

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:2005 holds the record and 2006 and 2007 were quiet compared to it. There were only 2 last year which could be a record low for all I know. I am talking about Atlantic huricanes. So I await this season to see if the monster storms that some expect will arrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

And then you can draw a line using those 4 years as data? What conceivable use would that be?

They could be used as a point on a graph of world weather from 1900 to 2010.

That would be sensible, but not what youngdan appears to be proposing.

Exactly, and the lull in world temperatures since 1998 could be to warming-sceptics what a quarter of gains in a falling market is to bulls. A trap. 10 years is nothing in climatology. We have to think in centuries and millennia and base our judgements on long-term trends.

According to a German computer model then it's going to get cooler soon - reported by BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

Deep patterns
Modelling of climatic events in the oceans is difficult, simply because there is relatively little data on some of the key processes, such as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) - sometimes erroneously known as the Gulf Stream - which carries heat northwards in the Atlantic.

Only within the last few years have researchers begun systematically deploying mobile floats and tethered buoys that will, in time, tell us how this circulation is changing.

Evidence that computer models are unreliable? Ok they say in that article that temperatures will be rising by 2020 but are they just guessing?? The mechanisms and processes involved are so complex that it it seems premature for us to talk of man-made global warming - we'd need another hundred years of climate research. It might be no harm at all for us to pretend that global warming is man-made and live by such a rule up to a point but I'd hate to be duped by zany scientific nonsense based on not enough evidence data or knowledge.

Haven't time to read the link - will definitely read it later. But the possibility of reversal of the gulf stream current is one of the possible predicted outcomes of warmer sea and air temperatures. I remember reading that it has been slowing for a while. This would eventually mean sking in the Comeraghs and no food supply in Ireland.

If you look at the long trend graphs over the last 100 plus years posted on this site, you see a steady increase in temperatures as the long trend with lots of little ups and downs along the way. The IPCC reports are the gold standard, and they are the result of works of 100s of scientists. The reports watered down the higher end predictions so as not to frighten the horses.

Science will improve and corrections will be made, but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have plenty of good science to rely on.

cactus flower wrote:Haven't time to read the link - will definitely read it later. But the possibility of reversal of the gulf stream current is one of the possible predicted outcomes of warmer sea and air temperatures. I remember reading that it has been slowing for a while. This would eventually mean sking in the Comeraghs and no food supply in Ireland.

If you look at the long trend graphs over the last 100 plus years posted on this site, you see a steady increase in temperatures as the long trend with lots of little ups and downs along the way. The IPCC reports are the gold standard, and they are the result of works of 100s of scientists. The reports watered down the higher end predictions so as not to frighten the horses.

Science will improve and corrections will be made, but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have plenty of good science to rely on.

To be fair, the IPCC reports, while a gold standard, are also always out of date. They accept only completed work that has been through the peer-review process - for certainty - at the beginning of any IPCC round. That means that by the time a report comes out, it is based on research that is a minimum of five years old and may be as much as ten. That's then watered down.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:Haven't time to read the link - will definitely read it later. But the possibility of reversal of the gulf stream current is one of the possible predicted outcomes of warmer sea and air temperatures. I remember reading that it has been slowing for a while. This would eventually mean sking in the Comeraghs and no food supply in Ireland.

If you look at the long trend graphs over the last 100 plus years posted on this site, you see a steady increase in temperatures as the long trend with lots of little ups and downs along the way. The IPCC reports are the gold standard, and they are the result of works of 100s of scientists. The reports watered down the higher end predictions so as not to frighten the horses.

Science will improve and corrections will be made, but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have plenty of good science to rely on.

To be fair, the IPCC reports, while a gold standard, are also always out of date. They accept only completed work that has been through the peer-review process - for certainty - at the beginning of any IPCC round. That means that by the time a report comes out, it is based on research that is a minimum of five years old and may be as much as ten. That's then watered down.

Agreed - but as you know if it was done any other way people would scream that it was bad science (rightly so). What seems to be the case is that the trends indicated by the IPCC have been born out by observation, and that sea temperature and other indicators are in excess of the IPCC predictions.

New NASA study out today - time to start praying?

The Guardian wrote:Scientists examined published reports dating back to 1970 and found
that at least 90% of environmental damage and disruption around the
world could be explained by rising temperatures driven by human
activity.

LINK

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:Haven't time to read the link - will definitely read it later. But the possibility of reversal of the gulf stream current is one of the possible predicted outcomes of warmer sea and air temperatures. I remember reading that it has been slowing for a while. This would eventually mean sking in the Comeraghs and no food supply in Ireland.

If you look at the long trend graphs over the last 100 plus years posted on this site, you see a steady increase in temperatures as the long trend with lots of little ups and downs along the way. The IPCC reports are the gold standard, and they are the result of works of 100s of scientists. The reports watered down the higher end predictions so as not to frighten the horses.

Science will improve and corrections will be made, but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have plenty of good science to rely on.

To be fair, the IPCC reports, while a gold standard, are also always out of date. They accept only completed work that has been through the peer-review process - for certainty - at the beginning of any IPCC round. That means that by the time a report comes out, it is based on research that is a minimum of five years old and may be as much as ten. That's then watered down.

Agreed - but as you know if it was done any other way people would scream that it was bad science (rightly so). What seems to be the case is that the trends indicated by the IPCC have been born out by observation, and that sea temperature and other indicators are in excess of the IPCC predictions.

True enough, and an unfortunate side-effect of the politicisation of the debate. Unfortunately, by the time the deniers can't keep up their cretinous chorus any more, we will be at a point where they can switch to whinging that it's too late.

Haven't read this from MN News Scrapbook today, but it might be relevant:

LINK

I've read it now, and they can't agree on it.