[Closed] Global warming update!

Has the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation kicked off into a cooling phase yet?

Guess that depends on whether you consider the carbon cost of energy production for a Google search to be destructive or an impact.

Isn't this pretty much anything and everything humans do, to varying degrees.

Next time you look out across beautiful rolling English countryside, bear in mind it's already been destroyed, 1500 odd years ago.

Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes

Aren't they also spending money on insulating homes?

Of course what we do here in the UK is a drop in the ocean .... worlds biggest polluters (china, India, USA, brazil etc)

It's a bit more complicated than that. Why is India etc polluting so much? Cos they are making stuff for us to buy, or spending money we gave them for said stuff. Our hands are a lot dirtier than you think.

The Elephant (well, one of them) in the room... population.

That's the bit that frightens me, I can live with the idea of rising sea levels and warmer temps.

But feeding the billions is the scary bit. We aren't exactly doing a perfect job as it is.

Junkyard - Big Hitter
I also find it most amusing to read an economist berating an area of science for its inability to do accurate long term predictions - Oh the irony....Your better than this THM follow the data - its a reduced rate of warming due to better measurement/models it is in no sense a climb down by anyone standards. Poor, see me after class

For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!

FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics - indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one - so the unnecessary jibe doesn't really hold up. Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, "[i]is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.[/i]" This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).

Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced? Second, if the Met says that the absolute temperature in 2012 was below the average of the last decade (and wording suggests that this is an absolute measure) what does that say?

Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

In the meantime, I will agree with the idea that science should be approached with caution given "its inability to do accurate predictions" and be thankful that the Met Office now has better equipment and models (oh no) to do its job better than in the past. If only scientific economists could do the same!

It's a bit more complicated than that. Why is India etc polluting so much? Cos they are making stuff for us to buy, or spending money we gave them for said stuff. Our hands are a lot dirtier than you think.

neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven

Back to the back of the class for you.

We know that CO2, CH4, and N2O are products of industrialisation (i.e. MM)

We also know that these are three gases that indeed cause GW.

Now then, what was 2+2?

Well yes.

However, we can't change what China do but we CAN change what we do.

For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!

Not seeing either an ad hom or a straw man tbh

What you want to say your account was a good analysis of what has happened and my critique of it was nothing but personal? Good luck with that - was it a climb down then - was it - you make no mention of this nor defend your view I note.

FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics - indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one - so the unnecessary jibe doesn't really hold up.

What jibe ?is it your view that economists are good at making predictions - you may not like the style of it but the truth [ that economist are not good at doing predictions]is self evidently correct,

Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, "is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance." This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).

I could say that about anything, evolution for example - do you have some actual evidence beyond this? the fact you out disparaging comment sin parenthesis is rather sad tbh and shows you are not even interested in debate as you are just so dismissive - what a shame you have yet to present any actual data or evidence to support your view
You are never in a strong position when in a debate of science you are making philosophical points - that is not an ad hom either

Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced?

Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

Again I refer you to my point that in a debate about science when you make philosophical point rather than discuss data or evidence it is most likely your viewpoint lacks evidence

The Elephant (well, one of them) in the room... population.

That's the bit that frightens me, I can live with the idea of rising sea levels and warmer temps.

But feeding the billions is the scary bit. We aren't exactly doing a perfect job as it is.

Oh feeding 7 billion is easy if we got our shit together.

The problem is western levels of consumption.

We know that CO2, CH4, and N2O are products of industrialisation (i.e. MM)

We also know that these are three gases that indeed cause GW.

Care to provide a reference which proves that statement?

If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced? Second, if the Met says that the absolute temperature in 2012 was below the average of the last decade (and wording suggests that this is an absolute measure) what does that say?

Firstly look up standard deviation and variance - all scientific data varies in small degree's that cannot be predicted. Chemisty lab results show slightly different values no matter how many times you repeat them. What matters is, is if the variation is statistically significant and not caused by another variable that you have not studied or a deviation from your test protocols. To put it simply for artist scum like yourself, scientists do not think the latest variations in warming are significant in the light of historical long term trends. The variation is within the observed normal range.

Long term predictions are relatively easy to make. It's high likely that it's going to get hotter, there's no two ways round it.

Now go back to splashing paint/monkey shit on canvas and selling it to Kensington yuppies or whatever it is you like to do.

aracer I dont understand why folk try to make a point with a question [ beyond the philosophical trick that it is easy to just keep asking questions - If you have a point why not make it 💡

Any of the IPCC reports cover them all in some detail as will various other papers - try a search engine or wiki or a basic climate book

He gave you two premises neither of which can be questioned.

Which are you doubting - we dont pollute or that those gases dont cause warming via the greenhouse effect?

He gave you two premises neither of which can be questioned.

Really? The greenhouse effect due to certain gases is a generally accepted effect, but where's the proof that GW is being caused by the concentrations changing? (apologies for the use of a question - if that really bothers you I could make it more awkward by rephrasing as a statement that there is no proof of that)

All I think you'll find in any IPCC report is some vaguely worded correlations.

Junkyard - Big Hitter
For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!
Not seeing either an ad hom or a straw man tbh

What you want to say your account was a good analysis of what has happened and my critique of it was nothing but personal? Good luck with that - was it a climb down then - was it - you make no mention of this nor defend your view I note.
FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics - indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one - so the unnecessary jibe doesn't really hold up.
What jibe ?is it your view that economists are good at making predictions - you may not like the style of it but the truth [ that economist are not good at doing predictions]is self evidently correct,

Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, "is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance." This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).
I could say that about anything, evolution for example - do you have some actual evidence beyond this? the fact you out disparaging comment sin parenthesis is rather sad tbh and shows you are not even interested in debate as you are just so dismissive - what a shame you have yet to present any actual data or evidence to support your view
You are never in a strong position when in a debate of science you are making philosophical points - that is not an ad hom either
Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced?

I would answer this but the Yea right - lazy unevidenceed slur again- there is one in every paragraph from now on - makes me think you wont listen
Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

No idea what you require for proof here I suspect you are just setting it so high that nothing science says is proven.
Again I refer you to my point that in a debate about science when you make philosophical point rather than discuss data or evidence it is most likely your viewpoint lacks evidence

CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV

Stop taking teh interwebz so seriously! 🙂

Apparently, wind turbines should be painted purple to reduce the number of bats and birds killed.

Just thought I'd throw that factoid in.....

Care to provide a reference, Aracer? If you don't know right from left you're going to have trouble discussing which side of the road it's best to drive on. If you're totally clueless about a subject it's usually best not to go out of your way to demonstrate you'd be better reading than contributing.

Do you really think someone needs a reference to justify CO2 etc. being greenhouse gases or are you trolling? Don't answer, I know you're trolling because I've seen you on enough climatic change threads to know you've seen dozens of links to research demonstrating how greenhouse gases work.

Edit: out of idle interest I pasted "CO2, CH4, and N2O" into Google, the result was pages of results on "gas à effet de serre" or "greenhouse gases".

Junkyard - Big Hitter
Not seeing either an ad hom...

My point exactly! But one thing:

I would answer this but the Yea right - lazy unevidenceed slur again- there is one in every paragraph from now on - makes me think you wont listen

Well, given that many geographical phenomena including climate change occur over very long periods of time, the Met Office's description of the period 1971-2000 as "long-term" seems to be verging on the ridiculous....hence the "yea right" comment. But that's enough. We can normally debate pleasantly but not on this topic, so I will leave it there.

bwaarp - Member
To put it simply [b]for artist scum like yourself[/b], scientists do not think the latest variations in warming are significant in the light of historical long term trends.

{To be consistent with previous posting], I would point out that I find calling people scum offensive. I would normally break a habit and report that, but the rest of the abuse was so funny that I changed my mind.

Now go back to splashing paint/monkey shit on canvas and selling it to Kensington yuppies or whatever it is you like to do.

I think we have different notion of artist. But thanks for the extra insult anyway.

The greenhouse effect due to certain gases is a generally accepted effect, but where's the proof that GW is being caused by the concentrations changing?

Right so we know the gases cause the greenhouse effect

So increasing the concentrations [why did you say changing?] of the gases that cause the greenhouse effect will ?

The IPPC is detailed to the point of telling you the additional watts [radiative forcing]for each gas so not sure why you were so dismissive re correlation etc - do you need a link to this

I suspect you know all this so i dont know why you said them that way

for example

The RF due to changes in CH4 mixing ratio is calculated with the simplified yet still valid expression for CH4 given in Ramaswamy et al. (2001). The change in the CH4 mixing ratio from 715 ppb in 1750 to 1,774 ppb (the average mixing ratio from the AGAGE and GMD networks) in 2005 gives an RF of +0.48 ± 0.05 W m–2, ranking CH4 as the second highest RF of the LLGHGs after CO2 (Table 2.1).

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.UO8_Om91GSo

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
Have fun

Care to provide a reference, Aracer?

A reference for what? I'm not the one making claims here.

If it's so obvious, it won't be any trouble at all for you to provide a reference that proves that increases in global temperature are directly related to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and prove me wrong. You see the thing is, the way science works isn't by stating that something is obvious and providing no evidence. I note that there's a big difference between proving that and proving that CO2 has a greenhouse effect - something I'm perfectly happy to accept.

That would be so much better a response than a load of ad-hom...

So increasing the concentrations [why did you say changing?] of the gases that cause the greenhouse effect will ?

Have a far more complex effect on the global system than can be determined by a simple formula relating how the gases interact with radiation. BTW I thought "changing" was simply a more neutral word to use - far too much deliberate use of inflammatory terminology in this debate.

The IPPC is detailed to the point of telling you the additional watts [radiative forcing]for each gas so not sure why you were so dismissive re correlation etc - do you need a link to this

Probably because none of the evidence they provide is proof that any GW effects we're seeing are directly related to concentrations of gas in the atmosphere. It's all conjecture - there's no direct evidential link.

My point exactly! But one thing:

I was rather hoping you would highlight where I either did an ad hom or a straw man as I reject it - rejecting it hardly proves it - that's not even logical enough to be fallacy 😉

[img] [/img]

No trouble at all, ignore it at your peril.

Exactly what is that graph supposed to prove, edu? Though maybe I'll take back my acceptance of a correlation between CO2 and global temperature given that evidence.

That were enjoying a particularly cool period in geolical history, a very nice time to be on the planet for us humans as we've evolved in it and are adapted to it, a period comparable with the late carboniferous. When CO2 levels rose in the permian the average temperature went up dramatically resulting in extreme climatic change and the "permian extinctions". Google that and you'll understand why 330ppm is not good, 500ppm is defintely bad and 1000ppm puts an end to life on earth as we know it.

Sleep on it, good night all.

Edit: [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event ]first Google result[/url], note how all but the meterite explanation include greenhouse gases. Given the gradual nature of the extinctions I favour the chemical/climatic explanations which are better supported by the geological record

However, we can't change what China do but we CAN change what we do.

who's willing to gamble with THE EFFING EARTH? oh, everyone.

the earth is fine, the most we'll do is make it uninhabitable for humans. the planet is dynamic system and will recover anyway. well over 90% of the life forms that have ever existed are extinct, that's the joy of life. We'll be gone the blink of an eye in the lifetime of planet and no matter much we arrogantly think we'll leave any mark of significance behind either positive or negative is just so much egotistical cack. We are nothing and will leave no mark until the sun supernovas and it's all gone.

life is too short to worry about stuff that is so far out of our control, just enjoy your little microcosm before you go to the big sleep.

I note that there's a big difference between proving that and proving that CO2 has a greenhouse effect - something I'm perfectly happy to accept.

So you accept it is a greenhouse gas but dont accept that changes to its level will affect the greenhouse effect.

Have a far more complex effect on the global system than can be determined by a simple formula relating how the gases interact with radiation.

BTW I thought "changing" was simply a more neutral word to use - far too much deliberate use of inflammatory terminology in this debate.

Probably because none of the evidence they provide is proof that any GW effects we're seeing are directly related to concentrations of gas in the atmosphere.

It's all conjecture - there's no direct evidential link.

As above - what do you mean by no direct evidential link?

Are you claiming its all just correlation and coincidence?
Sorry for the questions given what I said above bit tbh I dont really know what your point is or what you require when you say "proof" and " evidence"

life is too short to worry about stuff that is so far out of our control, just enjoy your little microcosm before you go to the big sleep

That's the problem with humans, I want all the things now, I don't care if that means everything's naff for my grandchildren (never mind the millions of other species we share the planet with). Has to end badly doesn't it?

As for arguing about atmospheric/climate science I've had too many arguments to be bothered. Don't feed the ignorant trolls. Go read some science and have a wee think.

no matter much we arrogantly think we'll leave any mark of significance behind either positive or negative is just so much egotistical cack

I don't think you quite understand why people are concerned. It's not really about egotism, it's the fact that we don't want people to die needlessly.

Well we may not be able to predict every last effect but what we are trying to do is establish if we get warmer when we store more radiation [ energy]. I dont think its that hard to do and you have some links to follow.

The trouble is, none of the modelling they do based on that is at all able to provide an accurate prediction of the changes in temperature relative to the changes in concentration of gas in the atmosphere. Which suggests it's really not all that direct a link in real life.

its not neutral its inaccurate

Jeez - does "changing" not include "increasing" in your dictionary? The concentrations of gases are changing, hence I don't see what's at all inaccurate about using that word.

t's not really about egotism, it's the fact that we don't want people to die needlessly.

it'll happen anyway as a species we're gone, like all the others before us, everything we see around us now....will become extinct to. There is no need or needless there is just the endless charge to oblivion. we can't cure death, we can't make the world a happy utopia pickled in aspic with just the right number of people and the species we like, so that there is no famine, so that natural disasters don't happen.

even if there were no humans at all, ever, all the species now on the planet will become extinct over geological time and replaced and on and on

we make no difference at all. in the slightest. whatsoever.

Care to provide a reference which proves that statement?

Part 1 - basic high school chemistry:

a) Combustion of petrolium: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

b) Anaerobic degradation of organic materials in landfill: CH3COOH = CH4 + CO2

c) Oxidation of atmospheric dinitrogen in an internal combustion engine: 2 N2 + O2 + heat = 2 N2O (g)

Part 2 - High school geography / environmental science

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

Happy, Aracer?

it'll happen anyway

Oh, ok then. Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

its not neutral its inaccurate
Jeez - does "changing" not include "increasing" in your dictionary? The concentrations of gases are changing, hence I don't see what's at all inaccurate about using that word.

Well of course it does but, as all three gases were increasing ait looked like an attempt to avoid saying increasing. Technically the gas levels will always be changing as its not a constant but lets not get bogged down on this.

I am still none the wiser as to what you want as proof,

none of the modelling they do based on that is at all able to provide an accurate prediction of the changes in temperature

I think we can all accept models have a degree of inaccuracy but that does not mean AGW is false just that it is complicated and we lack complete knowledge about the exact effects - which is true of everything

For example not everyone who smokes gets cancer so the model cannot tell us who will get cancer from a group of smokers. i would not use this to conclude the message that smoking causes cancer [ increases you risk if getting cance rif we are getting pedantic] is untrue just because they cannot quantify which smoker or how many cigs need to be smoked.

Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

funnily enough is you see the good bits and the bad bits of the year thread you'll see that was a serious option. Not related to the fate of a spinning piece of rock with some monkeys on it though. Cock end.

and yet all the inaccurate models predict rise and we do indeed have rises.

Correlation, not causation. Lots of other stuff going on - far too much to suggest that the rises are definitely caused by the changes in the gas concentrations. Not when we have historic data showing decreasing global temperature with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and vice versa.

I think we can all accept models have a degree of inaccuracy but that does not mean AGW is false just that it is complicated and we lack complete knowledge about the exact effects - which is true of everything

Let's leave this debate on a point we agree on. The point I'm making here is that the impression the AGW fundamentalists often try to give is that we can tell exactly what will happen and that increasing the emissions by X will result in an increase of Y in the temperature. By extension that the most important thing to do is to limit the increase as much as possible, or try to decrease the emissions, and that they can predict what effect such a change will have. Where it might make more sense to devote our limited resources on ameliorating the effects of a change in climate which we can't actually do anything meaningful to control.

Correlation, not causation

It has to be correlative. To carry out a causative study, we'd need several replicates of earth, changing only one variable at a time.

It would be good if you had a grasp of how scientific data is generated before you started criticising it.

Oh, and do you understand my chemistry lesson, or do I need more references?

we make no difference at all. in the slightest. whatsoever.

[img] [/img]

funnily enough is you see the good bits and the bad bits of the year thread you'll see that was a serious option

Fair enough, my post was not intended to offend as I am unaware of the state of mind of most STW posters. This is a thread about AGW after all.

MOST people who make the 'we're all inconsequential' argument aren't suicidal, so I'm trying to point out that whilst saying 'let everyone die, it's only natural' is a valid academic standpoint, it isn't particularly palatable for most people.

It doesn't matter - just live life and stop worrying about global warming

Extinction level events occur every few million years and we can't prevent that. 65 million years ago approx 70% of plant and animal life was believed to be wiped out at the end of Cretaceous period by some event. Life carried on and the earth recovered.

Global warming if it is even happening is just one of many things that could have an impact on human and other life on earth. Humans need to put more effort into space exploration rather than pissing around trying to 'save the earth'

Live long and prosper

Live long and prosper at the expense of many other less fortunate or privileged people in developing nations

I think that's what you meant to say.

70% of plant and animal life was believed to be wiped out at the end of Cretaceous period by some event. Life carried on and the earth recovered.

Yes, but.

The rate of extinction we're experiencing now is pretty much as we'd expect from a massive event like that which is scary considering many people aren't even aware of it.

And it's not due to some massive force of nature, it's us being selfish and terribly inefficient. I don't like the idea of just brushing off mass extinction of hundreds of thousands of species as being par for the course of me getting steak every week or having my lovely new Ipad.

we make no difference at all. in the slightest. whatsoever.

In terms of the time we've been around, and the tiny, tiny time since say 1300, we've had a mahoosive effect. Species can adapt to the odd meteorite, ice age or super volcano but not a complete removal and degradation of their physical habitat on a global scale.

Humans need to put more effort into space exploration rather than pissing around trying to 'save the earth'

You ain't going faster (or anywhere near) the speed of light so it's completely pointless. And if we could, every time you went on a journey you'd end up hundreds of years away from when you started so you're family, friends etc would be dead. Also, you'd be well behind with the gossip/latest niche.
Also, the cost of doing that - in order to go to completely inhosptibale planets with nothing of any use or interest would be umpteen times greater than just sorting our sh** out and living within our limits - there's loads of cheap potential for reducing impacts.

Erm no

I'm an advocate of doing what the **** I like as something bigger and badder will get us all in the end and it wont give a monkeys if we are 'developed' or not.

Besides most developing nations are the worst polluters.

Honestly don't get your knickers in a twist about pollution and green issues. In a few million years it won't matter.

Mafiafish. Lots of good points there.
But when a super volcano goes off there isn't much you me or bambi can do about it.