Climate Change

[denso13]

We don't, hence the summers are getting hotter and wild fires accross europe show this.

Yea, but the sun loving Brits won't have to go to Magaluf for a tan. What's wrong with that ...

 

[pete01]

Yea, but the sun loving Brits won't have to go to Magaluf for a tan. What's wrong with that ...

I never would have guessed you go to magaluf, good for you

 

[Deleted member 317777]

Says a couple of old duffers that wont live to see the consequences. Very noble.

The irony….

 

[Notch7]

Barack Obama doesn’t seem too bothered about sea level rising, but I suppose he has enough money to loose but its odd that banks will still give you a mortgage on a seafront property unless it is an erosion area. - so they do not seem bothered about it either.

Please can you make it clear what you saying here;

Are you saying that the banks and the wealthy don’t believe climate change is real…..but the wealthy are telling the people that it is real.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Notch7]

the medieval warm period

Wasn’t warm

Global temps were similar to mid twentieth century temps.


Here is a bit more detail:

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea iceand land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms

 

[Odds]

Wasn’t warm

Global temps were similar to mid twentieth century temps.


Here is a bit more detail:

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea iceand land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms

He'll never get through that - waaaay too many words, man.

 

[MNW67]

Why did you edit your post?

The reason I edited my post was because one of the points I had made was wrong. So I took that bit out.

I get the impression, from the questions you have asked, that you are somebody who has actually thought about this quite a lot. I am the same. I don't have an ideological position and I have no interest in winning an argument. I just want to discuss the science and try to understand it better.

What I had originally posted was that, without any CO2, the earth would be on average 33C cooler. I had said that, basically, it would be about -20C and a gigantic ball of ice. This was incorrect. What I should have said (like I did in my first post on this thread) is that without any greenhouse gases at all, the earth would be on average -20C.

As we know, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. The biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect is water vapour, which adds about half of the natural greenhouse effect. But CO2 is very important and is the next biggest contributor.

I know you have said that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to have any effect. But that small percentage is actually three and a half trillion tonnes. Experiments, observations and calculations show that this small concentration of CO2 does indeed have a large greenhouse effect.

EDIT: As regards that complex diagram I posted earlier, I only posted it to show how complicated it all is. There are still bits I don't understand.

 

[Notch7]

Global warming is good for humanity,

Current Global warming caused by CO2 increases causes weather extremes……not so good for humanity

 

[denso13]

just want to discuss the science and try to understand it better.

The science is pretty simple, we put co2 into the atmosphere which reflects heat back to earth, ergo, the earth gets hotter.

You mentioned previously the changing position the sceptics, some of them at least, take. Some say it is all a scam, more are saying the science is correct but a bit more heat won't do us any harm.

There's a Nobel prize waiting for someone to prove this. But no-one can/has.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

The science is pretty simple, we put co2 into the atmosphere which reflects heat back to earth, ergo, the earth gets hotter.

You mentioned previously the changing position the sceptics, some of them at least, take. Some say it is all a scam, more are saying the science is correct but a bit more heat won't do us any harm.

There's a Nobel prize waiting for someone to prove this. But no-one can/has.

The planes will be out soon, spraying to keep us a bit cooler and not effect the solar panels we all have.

We have nothing to worry about

 

[Munroast]

The science is pretty simple, we put co2 into the atmosphere which reflects heat back to earth, ergo, the earth gets hotter.

You mentioned previously the changing position the sceptics, some of them at least, take. Some say it is all a scam, more are saying the science is correct but a bit more heat won't do us any harm.

There's a Nobel prize waiting for someone to prove this. But no-one can/has.

It is a bit of an unknown what will happen - yes sure there is no reason why we couldn't survive on a warmer planet apart from our human nature. The climate will change and areas of our planet that are habitable and good for food production will move, which means us humans will need to migrate to wherever becomes fertile

And here lies the big problem, humans can't tolerate others migrating, it is in our basic natural behaviour (its in mine) So the mass migration will cause wars like never before. So the heat won't kill us, we will mostly kill each other - the future is bright, as bright as an atomic weapon

 

[Odds]

The argument over whether or not this crisis is man-made still sound to me like a bunch o' tightwads arguing over who ate the side salad on the restaurant bill. Don't matter who. The account has to be settled any road to enable everyone to enjoy their next meal.

 

[johnny2007]

Please can you make it clear what you saying here;

Are you saying that the banks and the wealthy don’t believe climate change is real…..but the wealthy are telling the people that it is real.

Is that what you are saying?

Yes, that's exactly what's happening.
The very same people and organisations spreading fear are the ones making a gigantic profit from the "crisis" and doing things that go totally against their narrative.

 

[johnny2007]

If only they had satellites to measure these things....

Satellites 1000 years ago?

 

[MNW67]

Satellites 1000 years ago?

No!

Satellites can measure how much infra red radiation from the earth is being trapped by the CO2 in the atmosphere. From there, it is simple to work out that the recent warming is due to the extra CO2 we have produced.