Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[burglar]

A huge pudding...yummy.

Hahaha!

One of your best pick ups!!

 

[noco]

According to Danish Science, global temperatures which have been static for 15 years, we could be shaping up for a mini ICE AGE.

Much to do with the activities of the SUN


http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/...ge-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/

 

[sydboy007]

A huge pudding...yummy.

Oh Calliope. You always provide such incitement and learned postings.

It's like seeing a double rainbow with unicorns frolicking beneath.

 

[Zedd]

Off-topic in the Rudd thread:

Of course the fact that there is no evidence that there is any warming over the past 16-17 years doesn't matter to you, because your faith doesn't think it matters.

The reason I don't care about the debate over whether we've found evidence or not so far is because whether we have that evidence or not does nothing to alter the original concept which is that if we significantly alter the ratio of greenhouse gases in a closed atmosphere the amount of heat retained will be altered.

 

[medicowallet]

I know your quoted post was off topic in the Rudd thread. It was a response to your off topic post in the Rudd thread.

Do you not see the contradiction in this?

If you accept the greenhouse effect and you accept that climate is affected by atmospheric heat, then there must be a threshold at which a change in the ratio of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would change our climate from the "norm".

Care to offer an alternative hypothesis as to what will occur if we increase the ratio of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while at the same time maintaining your acknowledgement of the greenhouse effect?

The reason I don't care about the debate over whether we've found evidence or not so far is because whether we have that evidence or not does nothing to alter the original concept which is that if we significantly alter the ratio of greenhouse gases in a closed atmosphere the amount of heat retained will be altered.

Sure.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.

How certain are the IPCC that the magnitude of their positive feedbacks are accurate considering they cannot explain the past 16 years? or that none of their graphs match reality from the first few incarnations?

So yes, CO2 contributes to warming, but no, there may not be a point where it tips out of control, as which may be evidenced by history where CO2 was much higher than it is today.

Oh, so evidence is not necessary, is that because it disproves the theory that man made CO2 contributes to dangerous global warming, because that is starting to sound like religious fervour to me.

We are NOT a closed system. We are not theoretically limited by the limited IPCC models, which so far have been hopelessly inaccurate. However if you wish to subscribe to their erroneous assumptions without any scepticism, so be it, I cannot change your faith.

Sure, be my guest to help support policies that cripple medium term growth, lifestyles, lifespans and opportunities for those less fortunate than us. You have the right to make that choice by supporting a topic that you seem to acknowledge might be BS, but I will not condemn others to that, and they should not accept us doing so.

On the contrary, as soon as the science is settled, and accurate, if it proves that CO2 drives dangerous global warming, I will do my best to do my part, and will happily support a competent government position to tackle this currently theoretical (and implausable) problem.

MW

 

[Zedd]

I know your quoted post was off topic in the Rudd thread. It was a response to your off topic post in the Rudd thread.

Not a dig at you. Simply thought we'd moved from any reference to Rudd at all, so time to move.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.
...
So yes, CO2 contributes to warming, but no, there may not be a point where it tips out of control, as which may be evidenced by history where CO2 was much higher than it is today. .

I understand that the climate was significantly different in the past when the CO2 levels have been higher.

You acknowledge that the greenhouse effect is valid, and therefore that CO2 contributes to warming. So what part of the theory do you disagree with? Do you agree that an increase in greenhouse gases within the atmosphere will lead to proportional warming, which will lead to changes in the climate?

If the answer is "yes", then you're where I'm at theoretically.

Are you then saying that from what you've read the science suggests that no possible level of emissions by man would be significant enough to cause a measurable difference in the temperature or climate? I haven't read that, and my gut feeling is that there must be a threshold which is bearable given our current lifestyles world-wide.

We are NOT a closed system.

Can you explain how treating the earth as a closed mass system where only heat exchange occurs is incorrect? I think I made that call myself when studying thermodynamics so am not sure if that's the accepted model or not.

Oh, so evidence is not necessary, is that because it disproves the theory that man made CO2 contributes to dangerous global warming, because that is starting to sound like religious fervour to me

A lack of evidence showing recent warming is irrelevant to a theory that states that given time warming will occur.

I believe in a simple theory that suggests potential catastrophe. When I have the time I fully intend to dive into the nitty gritty but for now, nothing I've read so far has changed in my mind on the validity of the simple theory.

As I mentioned in the Rudd thread, I find it disturbing how many people appear to be ardent believers or non-believers in the potential for man to cause climate change along party lines. Every time a party changes its story/terminology/policy I then suddenly hear that everyone around Australia has suddenly aligned to these positions. That is disturbing on so many levels.

Sure, be my guest to help support policies that cripple medium term growth, lifestyles, lifespans and opportunities for those less fortunate than us.

As I said before:

Costs of living are a serious concern and shouldn't be increased lightly. I think it is entirely valid to debate whether Australia's actions will amount to anything, I think it is entirely valid to discuss which policies if any will be the most effective, or fairest.

 

[medicowallet]

Not a dig at you. Simply thought we'd moved from any reference to Rudd at all, so time to move.



I understand that the climate was significantly different in the past when the CO2 levels have been higher.

You acknowledge that the greenhouse effect is valid, and therefore that CO2 contributes to warming. So what part of the theory do you disagree with? Do you agree that an increase in greenhouse gases within the atmosphere will lead to proportional warming, which will lead to changes in the climate?

If the answer is "yes", then you're where I'm at theoretically.

Are you then saying that from what you've read the science suggests that no possible level of emissions by man would be significant enough to cause a measurable difference in the temperature or climate? I haven't read that, and my gut feeling is that there must be a threshold which is bearable given our current lifestyles world-wide.

Can you explain how treating the earth as a closed mass system where only heat exchange occurs is incorrect? I think I made that call myself when studying thermodynamics so am not sure if that's the accepted model or not.



A lack of evidence showing recent warming is irrelevant to a theory that states that given time warming will occur.

I believe in a simple theory that suggests potential catastrophe. When I have the time I fully intend to dive into the nitty gritty but for now, nothing I've read so far has changed in my mind on the validity of the simple theory.

As I mentioned in the Rudd thread, I find it disturbing how many people appear to be ardent believers or non-believers in the potential for man to cause climate change along party lines. Every time a party changes its story/terminology/policy I then suddenly hear that everyone around Australia has suddenly aligned to these positions. That is disturbing on so many levels.



As I said before:

Once the positive feedback magnitude proposed by the IPCC is validated in the real world, then I will agree with it. This also requires a time for the models to look like what is happening in the real world which is not happening.

Oh yes, CO2 causes warming. However how much? well there is decent scientific agreement on the direct effects of CO2, just no such agreement as to the positive feedback contributions (and although I have stated almost the same thing above, it needed to be said again)

No I do not believe that increases in CO2 will lead to proportional warming, in that it will certainly not be linear. This is not supported by the logarithmic behaviour of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and definitely not reasonable with nobody in the world understanding positive and negative feedback mechanisms. In reality I have no idea. What I do know is that the IPCC has it wrong.

No, I do believe that CO2 released by man can make measurable differences in climate. It is the magnitude that makes a difference (see feedbacks above).

There is some almost religious fanaticism around where people are so naive that they actually believe that the coal underground will not be utilised.

MW

 

[basilio]

The latest Senate inquiry into the consequences of global warming for Australia are highlighting the realities we are carefully ignoring.

Australia faces potentially disastrous consequences of climate change, inquiry told
Former defence force chief decries Australia’s response to climate challenge as a ‘manifest failure of leadership’

Climate scientists warn security threats posed by climate change have been underestimated and Australia has been ‘walking away’ from research that would help the country prepare.

Shares
2017

Comments
631
Ben Doherty and Michael Slezak

Friday 11 August 2017 04.00 AEST Last modified on Friday 11 August 2017 12.02 AEST

Military and climate experts, including a former chief of the defence force, have warned that Australia faces potential “disastrous consequences” from climate change, including “revolving” natural disasters and the forced migration of tens of millions of people across the region, overwhelming security forces and government.

Former defence force chief Adm Chris Barrie, now adjunct professor at the strategic and defence studies centre at the Australian National University, said in a submission to a Senate inquiry that Australia’s ability to mitigate and respond to the impacts of climate change had been corrupted by political timidity: “Australia’s climate change credentials have suffered from a serious lack of political leadership”.


The inquiry into the security ramifications of climate change also heard from some of the country’s leading climate scientists, who warned the security threats posed by climate change had been underestimated, and complained Australia had been “walking away” from exactly the type of research that would help the country prepare.

Other experts, however, counselled against “alarmist” predictions and said the focus of climate change response should be on those people most acutely affected by it, rather than the security concerns of developed countries most able to respond.

Barrie said the security threat of climate change was comparable to that posed by nuclear war, and said the Australian continent would be most affected by changing climate.

“We will suffer great effects from these changes, such as new weather patterns; droughts, sea-level rises and storm surges, because we have substantial urban infrastructure built on the coastal fringe; ravages of more intense and more frequent heatwaves and tropical revolving storms.”

But he said the existential impacts of climate change were likely to be first, and most severely, felt across Australia’s region, the Asia-Pacific rim, the most populous region in the world, and one that will be home to seven billion people by 2050.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-consequences-of-climate-change-inquiry-told

 

[SirRumpole]

and complained Australia had been “walking away” from exactly the type of research that would help the country prepare.

Another reason not to vote for the science haters in the LNP.

 

[wayneL]

Oh brother!

 

[orr]

Oh brother!

look forward to hearing the other side of the argument from Malcomb Roberts and your goodself...

 

[wayneL]

Orr,

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

 

[Logique]

Read it and weep my friends, as you open your next electricity bill. Dr Michael Crawford is none too happy with Finky, reckons (by indirect inference), he's a crook! It's a great article, especially see the historical kWh prices on page 4:

June 23rd 2017 - Dr Alan Finkel AO June 23rd 2017
Chief Scientist, GPO Box 2013, CANBERRA ACT 2601
Open letter re your Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/open-letter-to-dr-alan-finkel.pdf
I have read your recent report with interest. Over about half a century I have observed that government reports are sometimes dishonest, ideological, obfuscatory, authoritarian,
bureaucratised, wanting in courage, illogical and sometimes downright stupid.
I have to salute you sir. Your recent report appears to have set new heights in this respect.....
Dr Michael Crawford, 23 June 2017

 

[basilio]

Maybe the Antartic Ice shelf is even more unstable than we think ? It's worth reading the whole story. The sting is in the tale.

Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet
This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change


Unnamed peaks on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula tower over the harsh Antarctic coast. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo


Shares
257

Robin McKie

Sunday 13 August 2017 08.11 AEST Last modified on Sunday 13 August 2017 10.08 AEST

Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth – two kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west Antarctica.

The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 100 volcanoes – with the highest as tall as the Eiger, which stands at almost 4,000 metres in Switzerland.

Geologists say this huge region is likely to dwarf that of east Africa’s volcanic ridge, currently rated the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

 

[noirua]

Global warming will be stopped. It may take another 50 years before people will all provide their own Electricity and all cars become Lithium battery driven. Later cars will also recharge themselves with special roof tiling, brought out recently, and being used only on houses at present. Australia is best set with places like Whyalla with 301 days of sun each year. It is all a matter of reversing the curve.

 

[orr]

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we....

....We could, in the case of Sen Mal Roberts tomorrow, be a teapot or goldfish, maybe a rocket-ship or unicorn.... This will be observed from Mals 'unique' perspective.

Very shortly he will be observed as a non Senator. 77 primary votes, The Swedish for Seventy-Seven is Shoo 'da' Shoo. Apt as he's about to get 'da boot'...

 

[Wysiwyg]

After 12000 years, yes global warming is too late to stop. Take up a religion and pray is the way forward for humans. Fascinating that scientists have picked this up and ran with it.

What is the Holocene period?
The Holocene Epoch began 12,000 to 11,500 years ago at the close of the Paleolithic Ice Age and continues through today. As Earth entered a warming trend, the glaciers of the late Paleolithic retreated.

Human would not be as prolific without the planetary temperatures allowing so.

 

[basilio]

Exxon is now under investigation by a range of bodies for it's efforts at lying on the reality and consequences of human caused Climate Change.

Will be interesting to see the legal outcomes. Even more interesting to hear the responses from current climate change deniers on the research that Exxon undertook that proved CC was real and exceptionally dangerous.

Exxon researched climate science. Understood it. And misled the public.
New research shows the company gamed the public for years with things its own climate scientists knew were false.
Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Aug 23, 2017, 9:40am EDT

• tweet
• share

(Shutterstock)
The world’s largest oil company has been under some scrutiny lately. Back in 2015, Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times published a pair of matching exposes on Exxon, using internal documents to show that the company was well aware of the threat of climate change as far back as the 1970s, but consistently misled the public and investors about it.

Now ExxonMobil is under siege from even more directions. Seventeen state attorneys general have said they will begin cooperating on investigations into whether Exxon broke racketeering, consumer protection, or investor protection laws in its climate communications. New York AG Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts AG Maura Healey, and US Virgin Islands AG Claude Walker are all leading separate investigations. And in 2016, the US Securities and Exchange Commission launched its own federal investigation. All these investigations have inspired class-action lawsuits.

Exxon, not surprisingly, has denied all charges. It claims that it has been open and honest about climate change and that journalists are using “deliberately cherry-picked statements” to build their case.

In response to the 2015 articles, the company issued a challenge: “Read all of these documents and make up your own mind.”

Here’s a good lesson for #brands everywhere: Don’t issue reading-based challenges to a community full of nerds.

A couple of researchers at Harvard decided to take them up on it. They gathered every document, read them, did a thorough content analysis, and have just published the results in a peer-reviewed academic journal, Environmental Research Letters.

Spoiler: Yes, Exxon misled the public.

Exxon’s climate communications show internal honesty, outward-facing doubt
Geoffrey Supran, a post-doctoral fellow in Harvard’s History of Science program, and Naomi Oreskes, his post-doc adviser (and of course a noted science historian and author, most famously of Merchants of Doubt), did the yeoman’s work of wading through all the Exxon documents.

They found 187 overall, a mix of “peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements (‘advertorials’) in The New York Times.” (Exxon bought an advertorial in the Times every Thursday between 1972 and 2001 — one quarter of all the advertorials on the op-ed page.)


They did content analysis (a common social science method) of the documents, scoring various attributes, such as whether the document treated climate change as a) real and human caused, b) serious, and c) solvable.


The primary takeaway is this: In its public-facing advertorials, Exxon stressed doubt; in its internal documents and peer-reviewed research, it did not.


Specifically, 83 percent of its peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of its internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, while only 12 percent of advertorials do. Some 81 percent of the relevant advertorials express doubt.


“We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials,” Supran and Oreskes write. “Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public.”

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/23/16188422/exxon-climate-change

 

[basilio]

Obviously many media have noted and commented on the "Exxon misleading the public on CC" story. The guardian has a more indepth analysis with a sting in its tale.

Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
A new study finds a stark contrast between Exxon’s research and what the company told the public



Shares
749

Comments
210
Dana Nuccitelli

Wednesday 23 August 2017 20.00 AEST Last modified on Wednesday 23 August 2017 20.02 AEST

Read all of these documents and make up your own mind.

That was the challenge ExxonMobil issued when investigative journalism by Inside Climate News revealed that while it was at the forefront of climate science research in the 1970s and 1980s, Exxon engaged in a campaign to misinform the public.

Harvard scientists Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes decided to take up Exxon’s challenge, and have just published their results in the journal Environmental Research Letters. They used a method known as content analysis to analyze 187 public and internal Exxon documents. The results are striking:

• In Exxon’s peer-reviewed papers and internal communications, about 80% of the documents acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused.

• In Exxon’s paid, editorial-style advertisements (“advertorials”) published in the New York Times, about 80% expressed doubt that climate change is real and human-caused.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Percentage of Exxon document positions on human-caused global warming: expressing only doubt (red), only reasonable doubt (grey), acknowledging but expressing doubt (black), acknowledging and expressing reasonable doubt (black hatch), and only acknowledging human-caused global warming (cyan). Illustration: Supran & Oreskes (2017), Environmental Research Letters.
Merchants of Doubt
As Oreskes documented with Erik Conway in Merchants of Doubt, tobacco companies and several other industries that profited from harmful products engaged in decades-long campaigns to sow doubt about the scientific evidence of their hazards. As one R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 1969 internal memo read:

Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public

The results of this new paper show that Exxon followed this same playbook. While the company’s internal communications and peer-reviewed research were clear about human-caused global warming, its public communications focused heavily on sowing doubt about those scientific conclusions.

For example, Exxon scientist Brian Flannery co-authored a chapter of a 1985 Department of Energy report with NYU professor Martin Hoffert concluding that in a “Low CO2” emissions scenario, humans would cause about 2°C global surface warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and about 5°C in a “High CO2” scenario. These projections were in close agreement with those in the latest IPCC report nearly 30 years later.

Temperature increase projected in response to rising carbon dioxide levels. Illustration: Hoffert & Flannery (1985), US Department of Energy report.
Yet in a 1997 advertorial in the New York Times opposing the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon argued:

Nations are being urged to cut emissions without knowing either the severity of the problem – that is, will Earth’s temperature increase over the next 50–100 years? – or the efficacy of the solution – will cutting CO2 emissions reduce the problem?

...
Exxon’s Defense is Hollow
In its defense, Exxon spokespeople have asserted that the company didn’t suppress or try to hide its climate science research. While that’s generally true, it’s also true that Exxon’s public statements painted a very different picture about our understanding of human-caused global warming than the company’s scientific research and internal communications. The vast majority of those paid statements were aimed at manufacturing doubt, and often included the same misleading myths and charts that can be found on any run-of-the-mill climate denial blog.

Exxon’s scientists published some valuable climate research. Company officials discussed those findings internally. But in its public communications, Exxon officials decided to follow the tobacco industry playbook – claim that the science remains unsettled in order to undermine regulations and prevent a decline in public consumption of their dangerous products.

The tobacco industry was eventually found guilty of racketeering. Considering the findings of this new study, ExxonMobil may face a similar fate.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook

 

[basilio]

And just to remind us how hot the water is..

he year Trump was elected was so hot, it was one-in-a-million
The odds of 2014, 2015, and 2016 naturally being as hot as they were are about the same as the odds you’ll be struck by lightning this year


Shares
559

Comments
627
Dana Nuccitelli

Friday 11 August 2017 20.00 AEST Last modified on Saturday 19 August 2017 16.36 AEST

2014, 2015, and 2016 each broke the global temperature record. A new study led by climate scientist Michael Mann just published in Geophysical Research Letters used climate model simulations to examine the odds that these records would have been set in a world with and without human-caused global warming. In model simulations without a human climate influence, the authors concluded:

• There’s a one-in-a-million chance that 2014, 2015, and 2016 would each have been as hot as they were if only natural factors were at play.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-was-elected-was-so-hot-it-was-1-in-a-million