Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Smurf1976]

That way we might be able to arrive at a clearer picture of what (if anything) may be truly happening, and thereby more confidently determine where the accusations of rubbish truly belong!!

There are proper measurements that have huge potential use in research but in general you won't find any of those collected in an urban environment since that development itself skews the data.

 

[basilio]

MoKJO all CC discussion is alarming . In fact if you follow it clearly it is down right terrifying. Unfortunately that doesn't make it wrong.

It's clear that CC is happening and the rate of change is, in fact, faster than was suggested even 10 years ago. The research to date looks at the consequences of allowing CO2 emissions to continue on their current path vs moving heaven and earth to reduce them. The difference in outcome is moving from just disastrous to making the planet largely unihabitable for us.

Yes we do need to redirect our energies to food and water security. Mind you how the driest continent on earth can create water security in a rapidly warming climate is the $1 Trillion question. Good luck with that.

On the overall picture of the fragility of our current climate check out the danger facing us as the Gulf Stram falls to it's weakest flow for 1600 years.

Slow-Motion Ocean: Atlantic’s Circulation Is Weakest in 1,600 Years
If hemisphere-spanning currents are slowing, greater flooding and extreme weather could be at hand

• By Andrea Thompson on April 11, 2018

Credit: Tim Graham Getty Images
In recent years sensors stationed across the North Atlantic have picked up a potentially concerning signal: The grand northward progression of water along North America that moves heat from the tropics toward the Arctic has been sluggish. If that languidness continues and deepens, it could usher in drastic changes in sea level and weather around the ocean basin.

That northward flow is a key part of the larger circulation of water, heat and nutrients around the world’s oceans. Climate scientists have been concerned since the 1980s that rising global temperatures could throw a wrench in the conveyor belt–like system, with possibly stark climatic consequences. Sea levels could ratchet upward along the U.S. east coast, key fisheries could be devastated by spiking water temperatures and weather patterns over Europe could be altered.

Such concerns had been quelled over the last decade as climate models suggested this branch of the ocean’s circulatory system was not likely to see a rapid slowdown, which would slow any consequences. But two new studies, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, suggest the recent weakening spotted by ocean sensors is not just a short-term blip, as some had thought. Rather, it is part of a longer-term decline that has put the circulation at its weakest state in centuries. The results imply climate models are missing key pieces of the puzzle, and that ill effects could be on their way.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...antics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/

 

[moXJO]

MoKJO all CC discussion is alarming . In fact if you follow it clearly it is down right terrifying. Unfortunately that doesn't make it wrong.

It's clear that CC is happening and the rate of change is, in fact, faster than was suggested even 10 years ago. The research to date looks at the consequences of allowing CO2 emissions to continue on their current path vs moving heaven and earth to reduce them. The difference in outcome is moving from just disastrous to making the planet largely unihabitable for us.

Yes we do need to redirect our energies to food and water security. Mind you how the driest continent on earth can create water security in a rapidly warming climate is the $1 Trillion question. Good luck with that.

We were suppose to be underwater by now. All the alarmist crap is - just crap. It doesn't help the discussion. And the propaganda put out by idiots on the left stopped debate. Remember the "you're a nazi if you don't believe in climate change".

Israel is drier than us. You seen their tech? $hits over ours, but they are rich. So yes I'm confident on water security

 

[Smurf1976]

Any chance those of you in the rest of the country could send some if your heat down to Tas?

Largely due to wind chill but it’s rather cold outside right now. Think I’ll turn the heater on.....

 

[SirRumpole]

Any chance those of you in the rest of the country could send some if your heat down to Tas?

Largely due to wind chill but it’s rather cold outside right now. Think I’ll turn the heater on.....

I'll send you some heat if you send some rain to NSW Central West.

 

[wayneL]

I'll send you some heat if you send some rain to NSW Central West.

I'll send you some rain, from SEQ, but you can keep the heat. If you like humidity, I'll send some of that too.

I'll take some of Smurfs cold though.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'll send you some rain, from SEQ, but you can keep the heat. If you like humidity, I'll send some of that too.

I'll take some of Smurfs cold though.

That's a done deal.

 

[Tisme]

SEQ predicted to have a really cold winter ...... I would suggest Noco would be asking the question

 

[explod]

SEQ predicted to have a really cold winter ...... I would suggest Noco would be asking the question

Yes he would and my reply,, Europe had and extremely cold winter and the Arctic Circle was up to 30c above normal. At times zero deg c when its supposed to be up to 50 below. This is the displacement effect of the abnormal patterns. Al Gore and most scientists did not anticipate this.

Of course cold weather fits with the denier agenda but its not helping the problem go away, just kicking the can down the road. Ok for an old fella but not for our future generations.

 

[cynic]

Yes he would and my reply,, Europe had and extremely cold winter and the Arctic Circle was up to 30c above normal. At times zero deg c when its supposed to be up to 50 below. This is the displacement effect of the abnormal patterns. Al Gore and most scientists did not anticipate this.

Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!

All this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given their overt unwillingness to separate fashionable opinions from "pseudo scientific" research practices.

Of course cold weather fits with the denier agenda but its not helping the problem go away, just kicking the can down the road. Ok for an old fella but not for our future generations.

The funny thing about agreement, is that it happens to be a form of denial of disagreement.
Whenever someone decries those in disagreement as deniers, the decrier is assuming a position of denial of those so decried!

So you too, are at least as guilty of denial, as those you so quickly accuse of same!

 

[Tisme]

Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!

All this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given their overt unwillingness to separate fashionable opinions from "pseudo scientific" research practices.


The funny thing about agreement, is that it happens to be a form of denial of disagreement.
Whenever someone decries those in disagreement as deniers, the decrier is assuming a position of denial of those so decried!

So you too, are at least as guilty of denial, as those you so quickly accuse of same!

As someone who uses mathematical logic daily, it's refreshing to see some of it spill from morphemes to sentences.

 

[explod]

So its ok to ignore sudden rises in temperature of 40deg c in the arctic whilst at the same time record cold snow storms across Europe and just pretend alls ok.

 

[cynic]

So its ok to ignore sudden rises in temperature of 40deg c in the arctic whilst at the same time record cold snow storms across Europe and just pretend alls ok.

With the possible exception of alarmism, I am not seeking to ignore anything.

What I would dearly like to witness, is a departure from alarmism, accompanied with a gravitation towards scientific practice, in order that humankind might, hopefully, gain a better understanding of the true nature and implications of the causation underlying any changes that may be occurring.

By what metric/s, can someone harbouring the aforesaid sentiments, be accused of ignoring events and/or being in denial?

 

[Joules MM1]

What I would dearly like to witness.. a gravitation towards scientific practice....

https://twitter.com/SciSchreibs?lang=en
@SciSchreibs

 

[Smurf1976]

Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!

That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.

If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.

Laboratory experiments, whilst obviously imperfect, do show the expected results. Proper scientists have done plenty of that and for what it's worth I had a go too just to see what happened. Add more CO2 and my simulated planet got warmer. Those who did it with more scientific rigour get the same results.

We are 100% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. It has been measured for decades at places distant from local pollution sources and then there's things like ice cores. We know it's increasing.

What nobody could honestly say they know is what effects this will bring. Anything there is theory and observation only, nobody can say for certain what the climate will be like in Melbourne, Vienna or Tokyo 50 years from now. Logic says that if the earth's overall temperature increases then that will have impacts but nobody's sure of the details. Predicting the exact closing value of the ASX200 on the 17th of July 2061 and who will be president of the USA a decade from now would be somewhat easier than predicting the fine details of climate change.

Does increasing CO2 cause warming = almost certainly yes. Works in theory. Works in a lab. Seems to be working in practice on earth. Even without the science, pure commonsense says that changing the composition of the atmosphere would likely result in something happening.

What nobody knows for sure is what effects it's going to have. Anyone claiming otherwise is most certainly making assumptions.

That said, it's a fair point that there's at least some chance the effects will be seriously bad and, since there's no going back, it would be wise not to find out.

 

[Tisme]

That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.

If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.

Laboratory experiments, whilst obviously imperfect, do show the expected results. Proper scientists have done plenty of that and for what it's worth I had a go too just to see what happened. Add more CO2 and my simulated planet got warmer. Those who did it with more scientific rigour get the same results.

We are 100% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. It has been measured for decades at places distant from local pollution sources and then there's things like ice cores. We know it's increasing.

What nobody could honestly say they know is what effects this will bring. Anything there is theory and observation only, nobody can say for certain what the climate will be like in Melbourne, Vienna or Tokyo 50 years from now. Logic says that if the earth's overall temperature increases then that will have impacts but nobody's sure of the details. Predicting the exact closing value of the ASX200 on the 17th of July 2061 and who will be president of the USA a decade from now would be somewhat easier than predicting the fine details of climate change.

Does increasing CO2 cause warming = almost certainly yes. Works in theory. Works in a lab. Seems to be working in practice on earth. Even without the science, pure commonsense says that changing the composition of the atmosphere would likely result in something happening.

What nobody knows for sure is what effects it's going to have. Anyone claiming otherwise is most certainly making assumptions.

That said, it's a fair point that there's at least some chance the effects will be seriously bad and, since there's no going back, it would be wise not to find out.

The trouble with lab experiments is that, in this instance. it's like putting a small aquarium inside a much larger one and expecting the larger one not to influence the smaller one. Its the same problem scientists have with gravity.

 

[cynic]

That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.

If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.

Laboratory experiments, whilst obviously imperfect, do show the expected results. Proper scientists have done plenty of that and for what it's worth I had a go too just to see what happened. Add more CO2 and my simulated planet got warmer. Those who did it with more scientific rigour get the same results.

We are 100% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. It has been measured for decades at places distant from local pollution sources and then there's things like ice cores. We know it's increasing.

What nobody could honestly say they know is what effects this will bring. Anything there is theory and observation only, nobody can say for certain what the climate will be like in Melbourne, Vienna or Tokyo 50 years from now. Logic says that if the earth's overall temperature increases then that will have impacts but nobody's sure of the details. Predicting the exact closing value of the ASX200 on the 17th of July 2061 and who will be president of the USA a decade from now would be somewhat easier than predicting the fine details of climate change.

Does increasing CO2 cause warming = almost certainly yes. Works in theory. Works in a lab. Seems to be working in practice on earth. Even without the science, pure commonsense says that changing the composition of the atmosphere would likely result in something happening.

What nobody knows for sure is what effects it's going to have. Anyone claiming otherwise is most certainly making assumptions.

That said, it's a fair point that there's at least some chance the effects will be seriously bad and, since there's no going back, it would be wise not to find out.

I fail to see how simple laboratory experiments, which are generally only able to consider a scant few of the potentially relevant factors (from the multitude that may be expected to exist in an entire planet with attendant ecosystems,atmosphere and astrophysical relationships etc.) can arrive at any confident statements about the effect of elevated concentrations of CO2.

In the absence of certainty, there is the chance that lasting effects, from such atmospheric change, may or may not exist. If lasting effects do exist, there is also (again in the absence of certainty) the chance that those effects are beneficial, detrimental or neutral!! In the absence of more comprehensive research, I am unable to claim certainty as to which it will be, but tend to favour the power of nature (as demonstrated throughout history) to have a healthy response to these predominantly natural emissions.

The respiratory needs, consequent to the dramatically increased mammalian populace of the Earth, appears, to me, to be the more probable cause of the observed elevation in atmospheric CO2 levels. (If memory serves, the human population roughly doubled during the latter half of the twentieth century).

This fixation of climate alarmism on fossil fuels, as the only possible causation, and the accompanying claim that tolerance of such elevated levels, can only result in catastrophe, is at best extremely premature (and in likelihood seriously amiss).

As such I am doubtful that efforts to artificially reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, will achieve any lasting effect, beneficial or otherwise, and may even prove detrimental to the health of the populace due to the short term creation of an (thankfully unsustainable) hiatus in the flow of this "nature serving" gas throughout various ecosystems.

The what, why, and how questions need to be more effectively addressed, if this issue is to be progressed towards satisfactory resolution (presuming an issue requiring resolution even exists!)

This presumption that our atmosphere isn't justified in holding elevated CO2 levels, consequent to the respiration needs of a more than doubled human populace, poses(in my opinion) a far greater threat to humankind, than the wildest imaginings of the more zealous proponents of climate alarmism.

 

[satanoperca]

Always thought the question of global warming or cooling was a silly one, as the answer is yes, the earths climate in constantly changing.

Has man contributed to the change? Yes, regardless of what sciences states.

To me the question should be "Are humans polluting the earth and making it more difficult for all living creatures to survive? YES

We have polluted the seas, the water ways, removed the lungs of the earth - forests through deforestation, polluted the air, destroyed the soil with chemicals etc.

Will humans change their behaviour? NO. Have we stopped starvation/poverty with all the technology available to us today? Have with removed chemical and nuclear weapons? Have we created peace?

Will the earth survive and fight back? YES, but many species will become extinct, maybe even humans.

Whether people agree with me or not, this is just part of evolution in the long term.

What is a shame, is humans think we are the most intelligent species on the planet, but are we, are we no different to every other living form, only care about our existence in the moment.

 

[Smurf1976]

So far as respiration is concerned that’s just part of the carbon cycle and under normal circumstances adds zero CO2 to the atmosphere since what you’re breathing out was removed from the atmosphere not long prior when the crops were grown.

There’s no denying that food production does emit considerable CH4 (methane) and NOx (various oxides of nitrogen) both of which are lower thermal conductivity gases than the nitrogen and oxygen which comprise most of the earth’s atmosphere.

As for lab experiments, me doing that was definitely in a manner that lacked sufficient rigour and really more for entertainment value than anything but that it produced the anticipated results wasn’t likely a coincidence given that the insulating properties of various gases are well understood and the concept has commercial application in, among other things, the power industry.

That different gases have different levels of thermal conductivity is known with certainty and has practical application. There’s no argument there since it’s measured, known and put to use.

Whether or not a minor change in the earth’s atmosphere matters is the question to my understanding.

 

[cynic]

So far as respiration is concerned that’s just part of the carbon cycle and under normal circumstances adds zero CO2 to the atmosphere since what you’re breathing out was removed from the atmosphere not long prior when the crops were grown.
...

On the contrary, the CO2 exhalations of the populace require the atmosphere as a conduit! A doubling of the populace, doubles the respiratory contribution present in our atmosphere at any given time!

In effect it is simply a doubling of the volume of discernible CO2 traffic, in correspondence to the doubled populace, but not a banking up of CO2 traffic.