2 of 2
2
Global warming ? Climate change? Global cooling?
Posted: 28 March 2013 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1422
Joined  2010-04-22

Not to mention that arguably an even larger threat than AGW is ocean acidification, also caused by increased CO2.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3249
Joined  2011-08-15

Not to mention that arguably an even larger threat than AGW is ocean acidification, also caused by increased CO2.

Which also decimates sea life not to mention overfishing off the Grand Banks, Chesapeake Bay, and the Carolinas where hog waste has polluted the waters to create flesh eating bacteria spurred on by the ever warming ocean. And the facts keep stacking up as the deniers stick their heads deeper in the sand.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4392
Joined  2010-08-15
Thevillageatheist - 28 March 2013 09:02 AM

I also noticed that sine dues failed to take into account the effect AGW has on animal life and not just extinction due to rapid climate change. Animals are evolving to accommodate to the shift in temperatures, e.g. The European black cap is now migrating into new areas with colder climates, such as England where they didn’t previously exist. Mating and migratory patterns are being altered as well as nesting sites and food sources as plant life disappears or alters to produce tougher seeds. Yet another example of proof that AGW is a fact.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060608-global-warming.html

Cap’t Jack

Funny, I think yesterday I was dis’in USAToday, and today I found an impressive, nearly in-depth article.  Frightening, yet timely.

Dan Vergano, USA TODAY |  March 28, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/27/climate-change-seas/2024759/

“... The acidification taking place here guarantees the same for the rest of the world’s oceans in the years ahead. This isn’t the kind of acid that burns holes in chemist’s shirt sleeves; ocean water is actually slightly alkaline. But since the start of the industrial revolution, the world’s oceans have grown nearly 30% more acidic, according to a 2009 Scientific Committee on Oceanic Resources report. Why? Climate change, where heat-trapping carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels ends up as excess carbonic acid absorbed into the ocean. . .”

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1776
Joined  2007-10-22

Here something to check out;

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 11:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
PLaClair - 23 March 2013 04:08 AM
sine dues - 22 March 2013 07:17 AM

What could be the cause for sixteen years of no increase in global temperatures but an increase in carbon dioxide ? Are the climate models the problem or is there another cause ?

Climate is a function of several factors over many years. Temperatures for any given years are subject to the vagaries of statistical probability.

There is no problem with the theory, only with the question, which misapprehends climate change. The question is like asking what caused heads to come up three times in a row in a series of coin flips.

It’s been proven over and over again that the average global temperature is steadily and inexorably rising—more quickly than it has in the past—and nearly every climate scientist agrees.  The National Acadmy od Sciences agrees.  Those scientists, among the best in the world, know about the “vagaries of statistical probability” better than anyone, and they know this isn’t one of them.

LL.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

In addition to mu previous post:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”, in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.


From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.


^ “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis”. Grida.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
^ “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis”. Grida.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
^ Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability p.958 – IPCC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2013 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4392
Joined  2010-08-15
garythehuman - 02 April 2013 11:59 AM

Here something to check out;

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

The title says it all:

“The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away”
Mar 30th 2013


Since we actually don’t know the impact of 3.0° climate sensitivity compared to 3.5° or 2.75° or 2.5° it’s all pretty theoretical sort of stuff.

What we do know is that the impacts of greenhouse gas forced global warming lags atmospheric injections by two/three decades.

Meaning that today we are looking at the results of levels from the 80s/90s - given how much weather weirding we have already seen and appreciating that the momentum is going one way only, {contrary to denialist’s delusional conjectures of some society saving turnaround just around the corner} - we have much reason to be scared no matter what the final “climate sensitivity” number actually turns out to be.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2013 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 05 April 2013 07:40 AM

Meaning that today we are looking at the results of levels from the 80s/90s - given how much weather weirding we have already seen and appreciating that the momentum is going one way only, {contrary to denialist’s delusional conjectures of some society saving turnaround just around the corner} - we have much reason to be scared no matter what the final “climate sensitivity” number actually turns out to be.

Yeah, mess with a system you don’t understand when your existence depends on it and there is no spare.

Sure, like we can send millions of people to Mars.  Of course no matter how bad it gets here it will be really difficult to make it worse than Mars.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2013 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05
garythehuman - 02 April 2013 11:59 AM

Here something to check out;

And here is something else to look at.
Making Sense of Sensitivity… and Keeping it in Perspective

The Economist apparently has a history of siding with business interests over actual science.

Now I’m experimenting to see how much text I have to add to keep the #@%^&$* forum software from thinking I’m a spammer.

Didn’t work. I removed Gary’s original link. Let’s see if this works.

Yep. Stupid software. It won’t let long-standing members post two links but will let newbies post multiple links in their signatures.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2013 09:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
DarronS - 12 April 2013 06:04 PM
garythehuman - 02 April 2013 11:59 AM

Here something to check out;

And here is something else to look at.
Making Sense of Sensitivity… and Keeping it in Perspective

The Economist apparently has a history of siding with business interests over actual science.

That’s great.  A debaste on how much we don’t know.

They don’t know why the temperatures have drifted downwards last decade and the deep oceans have gotten warmer than expected.  So for all we know things might rise faster than expected 5 or 10 years from now for unknown reasons.  Screwing up a system that you do not understand is really dumb.  Like economists are so smart.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2013 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05
psikeyhackr - 12 April 2013 09:59 PM

That’s great.  A debaste on how much we don’t know.

They don’t know why the temperatures have drifted downwards last decade and the deep oceans have gotten warmer than expected.  So for all we know things might rise faster than expected 5 or 10 years from now for unknown reasons.  Screwing up a system that you do not understand is really dumb.  Like economists are so smart.

psik

La Niña probably has a lot to do with moderating air temperature increases over the past decade. Natural variation is also probably playing a part. But the deep oceans holding heat does not bode well for how much the temperature will rise when the next El Niño event starts.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2