Forum menu
IMHO the single most important point is that while we continue to argue over minute details the concentration of CO2, methane, PFC, N20, SF6 etc continue to rise steadily (and rapidly) over pre-industrial levels.
For those who say that greenhouse gas emissions are not going to be a problem, how long should we wait before we do something? Given that we expect temperatures to lag behind the concentrations of these gases are you seriously proposing that we just wait and see what happens?
What is the 'safe' concentration of these gases in the atmosphere? What would convince you of the need to act?
epicyclo - I have copied this form another post of mine, but added to it it try and answer your question, sorry if you have read it before:
to understand this a bit better, please do a bit of research:
look up Climate forcing (for non believers thinking this is all mother nature), a classic example of this is the Maunder Minimum (which backs your natural climatic forcing argument) - There is no disputing that the climate is a complex entity that we dont fully understand.
however: then look up anthroprogenic climate forcing (for the pessimists)
and read:
and this [url= http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/14778.full ]paper[/url](bit out of date now)
that will give you a small overview into the factors that contribute here.
When reviewing all the data it is indisputable that humans have had an effect on climate, and we are heading into uncharted territory: however we have such a small data set to work with, with massive assumptions it is hard to make predictions.
The MWP you refer to is long before global industrialisation, major deforestation, and the extraction of fossil fuels, all of which contribute to the carbon cycle and climate change. To answer your question: The MWP is best explained by the factors described by natural climatic forcing. But please remember that the anthropogenic conditions set then (in the medieval) bear no relation those in the past 2-300 years. Therefor you are wrong is using that as a parallel to current climates. Yes it can contribute to modelling, but not good to use in isolation.
Also you are forgetting long term tectonically induced climate change: snow ball earth? the thermohaline conveyor etc... One thing is for sure, the climate is changeable to say the least: we have had tropical climates world wide with much higher sea levels than present, conversely we have been in glacials etc, what all the geological data collected lacks is the 'anthropogenic climate forcing' factors.
As you can see this is a large subject. Making assumptions based on one event (and a very small one at that) which happened a few years ago is wrong... this is why more research is needed.
Good point Midgebait. If everyone waited for 100% peer reviewed proof before they acted on a problem, nobody would ever do anything.
If Brunel, Henry Ford and George Stephenson had WANTED to warm up the atmosphere, and felt adding lots of particulates and CO2 rapidly was the way to do it then great, it looks like job done. But as far as I know they didn't think that, and if it is happening then it's all one tragic accident.
Hopefully the majority of scientists are wrong and it'll all be fine. Which world do we move to if they aren't wrong? Everywhere that NASA has visited so far is a shithole.
I used to believe absolutely that global warming was real but now that government has espoused the whole idea I'm sceptical as hell
I used to believe in Gravity, but since the government started taxing aeroplane tickets I've come to the conclusion it's bollocks
Isaac Newton...what an arse
Gravity's more likely to be a conspiracy by the one world government/ lizard people/ oil companies/ scientists seeking funding to make me look cr@p at riding uphill.
I've tried not to believe in it but it hurts too much.
Isaac Newton...what an arse
I never knew - got any pics? (you'd think they'd have shown his best feature on pound notes, not that wrinkly old face)!
And, yeh, gravity - they still haven't found the way that works either. Friggin lazy scientists
And, yeh, gravity - they still haven't found the way that works either. Friggin lazy scientists
Indeed, to busy spending entire careers up to their waist in peat bogs with magnifying glasses looking for beetle carcasses to build up assemblages of beetle fauna at different time periods, in order to reconstruct proxy temperature records over the last 10000 years instead of doing useful stuff.
Bastards...they are obviously shirking
Gravity is a good example - as Newton was actually wrong!
interestingly, the scientific consensus was behind him and backed his theory for three centuries, till a little known foreign bloke came up with a theory of relativity...
It's a slight exaggeration to say that Newton was wrong!
in order to later reconstruct the evidence & "cook" proxy temperature records over the last 10000 years to suit their paymasters' whims
Yup, it's all there in the hacked emails, man - wake up everyone !
(Mind, I'd quite like to be a professional wader)
The Medieval Warm Period:
The global temperature (note, global - not local) was about the same as the early 20thC before climate change kicked in. It ended with the Little Ice Age of the 15th - 19th centuries. The total temperature increase on average within the Northern Hemisphere was 0.2 deg C higher than the subsequent 15th - 19th C little ice age. The English experience in the MWP was greater than some other parts of Europe with the average winter temperature in England being 6deg C, so .5 of a degree warmer than last winter. I am not sure if there is any data for summertime temperatures though, which is a shame. The cause for this was shifting ocean currents and air currents bringing warmer air further north.
Viking settlement in Greenland did okay in the early years with small populations (late 10th century - 13th century), before beginning to decline in the 14th century. There was certainly less pack ice during this period than before or after (though I doubt there was less than today) which allowed both settlement in Greenland and Canada. The Western Greenland settlements failed in the mid 12th Century (so technically in the middle of the Medieval warm period) with the Eastern Settlements failing sometime in the middle of the 14th century, though no one quite knows when. There had been a massive shift in agriculture from the early days though with little in the way of domestic livestock being available for much of the period IIRC.
Interestingly there is evidence that the little iceage may have had anthropogenic causes (can't remember the paper, it's around here somewhere) - decreased populations in the northern hemisphere led to less agriculture and greater reforestation. Gotta thank the Black Death for that one 😉
Thing is though, recent climatic increases have been mental fast. As in beyond any previous natural changes. This is at a time when we should be in a cooling phase (hence all the saremongering that we were heading towards a new iceage some years back) which makes it all even more worrying to me.
epicyclo said
I don't need to see the data, just to hear a reasonable explanation of what caused the warmer weather in the medieval period.
I have to ask, are you a goldfish?
Because you asked, and I tried to answer, this very question 2 weeks ago.
The answer could be natural climate variation.
I'm perfectly prepared to admit that there are fluctuations in temperature. For example there is a phenomena called the Pacific decadal oscillation, there is also the El Nino effect and many others. I don't have the precise answer to your question about specific years, but from time to time some of these natural effects are going to coincide and we'll have exceptionally warm or cold spells for a few years at a time. But, the point is that scientists are agreed (really, they are, in any meaningful sense of the word "agree") that the global TREND at the moment is sharply upwards at a rate UNPRESCEDENTED in history.
If you have an argument with people on here, fine. But at the moment it just seems like you can't be arsed to go and google a few things.
Actually, forgot to say, unprescedented since the End-Permean, but that was because of huge geological changes, which thankfully we haven't seen much of lately (and by lately I mean in the last 200 million years)
busy spending entire careers up to their waist in peat bogs with magnifying glasses looking for beetle carcasses
Russell Coope... legend. 😀
Russell Coope... legend
yep
Just googled Russell Coope
Found a paper he wrote and thought I would quote the first 2 lines of the abstract. Might help epicyclo and a few others to understand why there are no easy one sentence answers for them.
More than 30 fossil coleopteran (beetle) assemblages have been recorded from oxygen isotope stage 3 in northern Europe, comprising several hundred identified species. Using the mutual climatic range method for quantifying palaeotemperatures, these assemblages show that the climates of the times can be divided into two distinct interstadial types.
And of course the main point is that this stuff is NOT b@ll@x. You may not fully understand it, and I won't pretend that I do either, but I think it does demonstrate the CHASM of understanding between the likes of James Dellingpole (gosh, I've found an e-mail by a scientist that is a bit offhand) and people who have a lifetime's study behind them.
rightplacerighttime - Member
I have to ask, are you a goldfish?Because you asked, and I tried to answer, this very question 2 weeks ago.
The answer could be natural climate variation.
I'm perfectly prepared to admit that there are fluctuations in temperature...If you have an argument with people on here, fine. But at the moment it just seems like you can't be arsed to go and google a few things.
Actually I can be arsed. This is a subject I've had an interest in for years - from back when you could only read about it in books. Google and you also get the full gamut of anti Global Warming fanaticism.
I may be a goldfish, because I was hoping for a simple and reasonable answer to my questions that a simple but reasonable person would accept.
Assertions, consensus, complicated graphs etc don't do that job, they just confuse. It reminds me of the great religious debates of the 16/17th century, wading through treacle chasing the elusive end only accessible to the illuminati.
I was hoping for a simple and reasonable answer to my questions that a simple but reasonable person would accept.
Assertions, consensus, complicated graphs etc don't do that job, they just confuse
Then science is not your thing leave it to people who are not confused by these things and trust what they say when they have had a look.
Junkyard - Member
Then science is not your thing leave it to people who are not confused by these things and trust what they say when they have had a look.
Ah, the old Papal authority gambit. Yes, master, we commoners must not question the metaphysical.
Ah, the old Papal authority gambit. Yes, master, we commoners must not question the metaphysical.
😆
Unfortunately complicated things like global climate trends can't be explained easily and simply - if you can't be bothered to look at 'assertions, consensus, complicated graphs etc' that's your choice.
No those who dont understand it should not question it...you openly admit you are confused by it.
I'm confused by the entire Earth too.
"Assertions, consensus, complicated graphs etc don't do that job, they just confuse. "
They do if you take the time to study them and the underlying data.
And if you don't make the effort and spend the time, then you should trust the people who do.
What you seem to be saying is, show me the evidence but without the actual evidence; a cop-out.
More than 30 fossil coleopteran (beetle) assemblages have been recorded from oxygen isotope stage 3 in northern Europe, comprising several hundred identified species. Using the mutual climatic range method for quantifying palaeotemperatures, these assemblages show that the climates of the times can be divided into two distinct interstadial types
Coope went through layers and layers of peat bogs collecting the bodies of beetles that were entombed in the mire. He then catalogued their species. Each layer of peat bog is younger than the layer underneath, and different varieties of beetles were found in different layers. beetles are quite sensitive to temperatures, different beetle species are found at different temperatures. By figuring out which kinds of beetle bodies were in which particular peat layer he could deduce the approximate temperature of the air when that peat layer was laid down.
He discovered working back through the layers (of lots of peat bogs, and after looking at a lot of dead beetles) that in the UK & NW Europe the relatively warm periods in between ice ages (interstadials) had actually been punctuated by very brief intensely cold episodes, with a rapid onset over the space of perhaps as little as 10 years.
By looking at dead beetles in peat bogs he had discovered the North Atlantic Thermohaline instability, which is known as "Gulf stream collapse" in popular journals of this parish.
Proxy temperature data is the work of Coope and hundreds of scientists like him scattered throughout the world looking at things like tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, coral deposits, oxygen isotope ratios in sea shells. This painstaking and mostly unseen work goes on in isolation, but is stitched together by climatologists to produce a coherent picture of past conditions before the time of thermometers. Everyone knows it's not perfect, but it's pretty good and the techniques are constantly refined, and crucially, the results from different disciplines reinforce work done in unrelated fields by unrelated teams.
These guys rock.
Nicely put.
Ian Munro
I must take issue with your pirates v temperature graph below
[img] 
[/img]
The graph is now several years out of date and has not taken into account the rise of piracy and pirate numbers in the Indian Ocean. The temperature rise is correct so therefore the graph throws doubt on global warming theories
I love the climate, personally I'm all for it...... 😆
It's nice to see another pastafarian showing the pirates/global warming data, which is further backed by a non existant (but as equally valid as jesus using intelligent design theory)deity. Long live the church of the flying spaghetti monster
tazzy
We're of the more radical/cynical Shia Free Pastafarian Church of the Latter day Santa Clauses.......
tankslapper- I shall be racing next year dressed in the "holy garb" as a pirate ....................yarrrrrghh
Perhaps bringing back Eugenics as a method might help.
This way we can cull or limit the world's Human population growth & ensure the survival & subsequent procreation of only the most deserving.
Plus Pirates - obviously.
Yaaaaar!
Epiccyclo,
Hope you're still following this thread.
This is why no one is going to explain climate change to you in one sentence (takes 4 minutes)
[url= http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline.html ]The science behind a climate headline[/url]
OK then, fantasy government time...
You're the leader of an industrialised country which is responsible for around a sixth of the historic man-made greenhouse gas emissions since around 1850, although your current emissions are now lower than some much larger developing countries.
Globally, every major scientific body and your scientific advisors are warning that their best knowledge indicates that the observed increases in greenhouse gases are due to human activities and that, even the increase in emissions stops in around 2020 the world is tied into a 2C average increase by the end of 2100 which means increases of up to 5C in the Arctic, parts of Africa etc. This is expected to result in a global decrease in food production, sea-level rise, changes in distribution of diseases etc. The science also indicates that with no action the average increase could be between 4 and 6C with local increases significantly higher increasing the risk of non-linear changes.
Do you:
A) Follow the scientific advice and work towards an international agreement on reducing emissions to what is currently considered the safe level of greenhouse gases. Reduce the risk to the national economy by taking early steps to reduce emissions rather than plan for a sharp increase in future years.
B) Wait until everyone agrees on the science and then do something.
C) Wait until a temperature increase of 1 to 2C is measured to 'prove' the science is correct and then do something.
D) Not do anything because of what you are hearing from other sources (blogs, sceptics etc) or you don't believe your scientific advisors, in the expectation that your country will have an economic advantage in continuing energy and resouce intensive growth when it is shown that the science is wrong?
E) Although it looks like man made climate change could be bull, we will get our advisors to fiddle the figures and tax everyone till they squeak to pay of our huge national debt.
Look even the weatherman at the BBC smells a rat
Face it Jones and the boys have been lying! icebergs ,pirates whatever crap you want to spout,the bullshit smells bad in the manmade climate change camp.
Its just like the wmd's these people will tell you anything to do what they want.
PMSL! Paul Hudson, climate expert. Perhaps you can ask Ulrika Johnson too 🙂
rightplacerighttime - Member
Epiccyclo,Hope you're still following this thread.
This is why no one is going to explain climate change to you in one sentence
I watched it and read the comments. Interesting to see Gerry Halliwell is one of the 35,000 scientists - surely that can't be true?
I thought this comment by John Boyce summed up why many people still have questions
[i]My general difficulty with the climate change drumbeat is this: Since the 1990's there have been cohorts of very bright mathematicians and scientist using squads of computers, reams of very accurate, precise data, doing research for masters with very deep pockets in a pretty circumscribed field, the stock market derivatives market. They were using the Black-Scholes equation and all its children, derived from the heat transfer equation from very well established physics.
And they got it disastrously wrong, as recent history bears out. When asked, they say 'Oh, there were a few parameters we had to assume values for, and our assumptions turned out to be wrong.' Hmmmm. Climate science is vastly more complicated, chaotic, and we have vastly fewer data points and understanding relative to its size. I think all conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt..[/i]
If you cannot explain the problem simply then you are never going to convince the majority of the public who don't believe. Most of what I read reminds me of dissertations on the number of angels on a pinhead.
It also suggests you do not understand what you are proposing.
BTW Seeing as I have been accused of being lazy, stupid,and a goldfish, I've done some Googling to try to fit in -
[b][u][url= http://www.icr.org/article/will-reducing-carbon-dioxide-solve-global-warming/ ]This looks like a reputable source[/url][/u][/b] - there's lots of interesting information here written by real scientists too. Loads of amazing revelations 🙂
I think global warming is actually being caused by the extra CO2 emitted by burning climate change heretics at the stake.
This painstaking and mostly unseen work goes on in isolation
Excellent post, Gwaelod. Well said.
epicyclo/ bone-idle, your most recent convincing evidence against the science has come from a regional weather forecaster quoted through the Daily Malice and a website which claims that the universe is around 4,000 years old. WTF!
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're either trolling, willfully ignorant or deluded. Take your pick 😉
epicyclo,
Did you not take anything from the video then?
OK, so I've gone and found out what Black-Scholes is.
And let me just remind you that not so long ago you said.
Assertions, consensus, complicated graphs etc don't do that job, [explain climate change] they just confuse.
But now you are saying that climate scientists can't be right when they make predictions, because some other smart people created a model for predicting and pricing equities in a stock market and that was shown not to work very well?
I have got that right haven't I?
That is what you just said?
Most of what I read reminds me of dissertations on the number of angels on a pinhead.
WTF is it with the need for some kind of religous point in every post?
The only pin dancing I can see is yours.
I am not sure whether you are dancing in ignorance or with a troll either way divergent data /evidence is not going to change your mind.
Anyone under the impression that the author of that article knows his stuff needs to have a read of [url= http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/ ]the 9 October entry on here[/url]. It would be funny if the bloke didn't have a column in a national newspaper, as a result of which he is probably taken ever so seriously by other chinless toffs.
But what really bothers me about climate change sceptics is that they offer f--k all in the way of solutions, other than denying that there's a problem. Even setting aside long-term problems like global warming, we live in a country where most buildings have woeful energy efficiency, we're dependent on private transport, we buy stuff that is landfill days later, and the cost of living steadily increases as we become more dependent on other countries to supply us the goods we consume and the energy we use. What's James Delingpole's answer to that?
They have none.
They still believe in brute force engineering as the solution for everything.
Grumm said-
Even if we do come up with some amazing big technological solutions for climate change etc - is there any reason why we shouldn't try to radically reduce waste and consumption? Is the 'progress' you envisage for the third world that they will become as wasteful as the western world?
I'm all for increasing efficiency, but in order to 'radically' reduce consumption and what is perceived as waste, it would inevitably mean a step backwards technologically and probably economically. Our lives are enormously better for all the trappings of western life, calories are plentiful, we are living for longer than ever before, travelling further, and being entertained better than we have ever been. All these advances take energy to supply them, and I would not deny that to my fellow human beings anywhere in the world.