ChatterBank4 mins ago
Global Warming
Leaving greenhouse gases out of the equation, would the general human industrialisation be significant enough to have any effect on global temperatures - 7 billion people, countless animals, a billion cars, houses etc all generating heat. Be a bit like heating a swimming pool with a candle but would if have any discernible impact?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ck1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ah Jake, we are in agreement to the principle, but how much of it is base change and how much is human - that is what we do not know - and we ought to know. I have conditioned my statements by the condoning of wastage and resource destruction - and dare I add that when you look at total life cycle analysis a lot of the so-called green solutions that we are experiencing disappear out of the window.
Another Krakatoa (or larger) in the next 86.3 years could set all the process backwards by a giant step....but that is leaving our fate in the hands of chance.
Another Krakatoa (or larger) in the next 86.3 years could set all the process backwards by a giant step....but that is leaving our fate in the hands of chance.
We do know this
We know that natural greenhouse gas sinks are capable of handling natural CO2 emmissions with about 2% spare
But human emissions are about 4%
A bath lets l00 litres an hour out of the tap
the hot tap is stuck and letting in 98 litres an hour
the cold 4 litres an hour
what's going to happen?
Wouldn't the sensible course of action to be turn down the tap that isn't stuck?
Or would you rather sit in a flloded kitched blaming the cold tap?
We know that natural greenhouse gas sinks are capable of handling natural CO2 emmissions with about 2% spare
But human emissions are about 4%
A bath lets l00 litres an hour out of the tap
the hot tap is stuck and letting in 98 litres an hour
the cold 4 litres an hour
what's going to happen?
Wouldn't the sensible course of action to be turn down the tap that isn't stuck?
Or would you rather sit in a flloded kitched blaming the cold tap?
Plenty to be done to create the sinks - CO2 trading is leading to interesting reforestation projects as to Brazil.....what will it take to encourage Peru, Venezuela and Colombia. What can we do to encourage the Chinese and Russians to cut back on unscrubbed coals....20% plus of world SO2 pollution lies with the former, the Russians not far behind
Reforestation of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, then countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Zaire, Nigeria, effectively the Equatorial belt.
In the UK, encouragement of tidal, hydro and wave, less of the destruction of UK lands and reforestisation, use of bio-harvesting of waste cropsfor C5/C6 based fuels, algae and even waste like cuttings and newspaper.......
plenty out there if we encourage it and not go for flimsy home driven wind, solar and all the rest at micro-scale.
Sorry, the sceptic speaking, as government is macro-corrupt, local government even worse - a mix of stodgyism, nimbyism, and, ultimately, the passing of brown envelopes.
Reforestation of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, then countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Zaire, Nigeria, effectively the Equatorial belt.
In the UK, encouragement of tidal, hydro and wave, less of the destruction of UK lands and reforestisation, use of bio-harvesting of waste cropsfor C5/C6 based fuels, algae and even waste like cuttings and newspaper.......
plenty out there if we encourage it and not go for flimsy home driven wind, solar and all the rest at micro-scale.
Sorry, the sceptic speaking, as government is macro-corrupt, local government even worse - a mix of stodgyism, nimbyism, and, ultimately, the passing of brown envelopes.
So DTC if every major scientific institution in the world told you that you had cancer and needed a serious operation
Would you go under the knife or would you listen to a chiropracter that told you it was a bump?
That's the situation with human based climate change
Everyone from the Royal institute to the American Association of petrol Geologists backs it
http://
But you and the rest of the Daily Telegraph readership know better
Would you go under the knife or would you listen to a chiropracter that told you it was a bump?
That's the situation with human based climate change
Everyone from the Royal institute to the American Association of petrol Geologists backs it
http://
But you and the rest of the Daily Telegraph readership know better
How dare you make such insinuations, Jake. Let me ask you a fundamental question before I respond - and that is what are your environmental qualifications and job experience.
Answer that and I will give you an outline of mine -and research areas. I will be a tad arrogant and say, at the outset, you ain't in the same league, mate.
Answer that and I will give you an outline of mine -and research areas. I will be a tad arrogant and say, at the outset, you ain't in the same league, mate.
Knowing what I do about the pleistocene epoch with its glacial and interstadial episodes I doubt what we do will matter a bag o' beans in the longer term but it seems that the kind of life some of the world's population is enjoying and the sheer complexity of relationships we have built up is very vulnerable to even small and transient changes in climate.
Isn't it worth accepting the conventional wisdom of the day regarding climate change?
Isn't it worth accepting the conventional wisdom of the day regarding climate change?
Personally, I accept your concept, seadogg - the issue for me is that grey area in the middle....that is where reason and rational decions (costs/investment? are needed).
After all, if one strips it back, global warming was a Chris Patten Economic Change concept of the Blessed to challenge Arthur Scargill that gained enormous traction in the mid-late 80s - for all the wrong reasons. I can remember listening into a very weak No10 et al presentation back in 1988.....98% of which has not transpired on a global or UK level, those discourses given by leading Oil, Coal, Gas, Glaciologists, Environmentalists, Uni Academics in Geography, Geology, Marine Science, The Green Party, Biologists, Politicians, Economists, and No 10/(Labour)...........and we are still debating.
Is that right or wrong, or a mere reflection of our 'confusion'?
After all, if one strips it back, global warming was a Chris Patten Economic Change concept of the Blessed to challenge Arthur Scargill that gained enormous traction in the mid-late 80s - for all the wrong reasons. I can remember listening into a very weak No10 et al presentation back in 1988.....98% of which has not transpired on a global or UK level, those discourses given by leading Oil, Coal, Gas, Glaciologists, Environmentalists, Uni Academics in Geography, Geology, Marine Science, The Green Party, Biologists, Politicians, Economists, and No 10/(Labour)...........and we are still debating.
Is that right or wrong, or a mere reflection of our 'confusion'?
An argument that turns into "I have better credentials than you" isn't worth having. The consensus as reflected in the UN Report for example is based on the opinions of many hundreds if not thousands of Scientists, and is accepted pretty much Universally among the major relevant Research Institutes. There remain an awful lot of questions to answer, but that is the nature of Science. And the broad point, that human activity is accelerating or disrupting natural cycles, is what's been accepted -- rather than a complete picture, because this doesn't exist yet.
Come back again, to where institutions like the St Andrews Gatty lie, and that is the break point between natural and human effects. This is the nub that we ought to develop and, if I was in DC's shoes (Cameron), I would be pushing for. Determine a reasonable spectrum around that and we can focus remedial spends, the drive against mother 'nature' probably being beyond the wit of man....though I am not going to be arrogant in saying that remedial or counter actions can't be found, just that those are unlikely.
You know DT, that many parts of the world are in a critical position re climate. Think of semi arid regions where rainfall is unreliable and apparently becoming more so. It is a credit to human ingenuity and adaptability that systems such as "dry farming" have helped to counter some of the problems of these areas but the increasing frequency of extreme conditions is already causing problems.
Accepting the possibility of political agendas of the kind you described I hope we shall accept that while nothing can be lost by accepting this latest collation of research we have a great deal to lose by ignoring it.
Accepting the possibility of political agendas of the kind you described I hope we shall accept that while nothing can be lost by accepting this latest collation of research we have a great deal to lose by ignoring it.
The issue, I believe, seadogg, is hearing the views of others, perhaps the unspoken and politically 'unacceptable' to get a full and focused debate/action plan (hence cost-benefit effective and targeted plans) to support the globe, be they of wealthy or the poorer nations - and not some UN waffle generalist LCF politically naive statement or inaccurate 'solution' that is globally ineffective.
Pragmatism versus Politics - yes, unfortunately.
Pragmatism versus Politics - yes, unfortunately.
razza //And why has it not happened before now when all the industrial world was belching smoke out,when every household had coal fires,now the world is a far cleaner place we have "global warming".//
You demonstrate your profound ignorance and prejudice.
Mankind's phenomenal fire has never been larger than it is today. We burn two cubic miles of coal a year and even more oil. Yes that fire now emits less soot than previously but the invisible emission of carbon dioxide has never been higher.
//In the last few weeks global warming has been disproved,//
Complete utter rubbish. What has been announced is that climate has not precisely followed the modeling. However there is no disputing the fact that Global Warming continues. Models are being refined as they always have been as scientist better understand the incredibly complex relationships involved.
//the arctic ice cap is bigger now than it has been for years//
Bigger in area than recent years perhaps but smaller than historically. Moreover it is smaller in volume because it isn't as thick. Fools grasp onto anything that encourages their prejudice and ignore the bigger picture.
Your pathetic attitude is driven solely by greed. You are content to squander the future of humanity rather than make small steps towards sustainability.
You demonstrate your profound ignorance and prejudice.
Mankind's phenomenal fire has never been larger than it is today. We burn two cubic miles of coal a year and even more oil. Yes that fire now emits less soot than previously but the invisible emission of carbon dioxide has never been higher.
//In the last few weeks global warming has been disproved,//
Complete utter rubbish. What has been announced is that climate has not precisely followed the modeling. However there is no disputing the fact that Global Warming continues. Models are being refined as they always have been as scientist better understand the incredibly complex relationships involved.
//the arctic ice cap is bigger now than it has been for years//
Bigger in area than recent years perhaps but smaller than historically. Moreover it is smaller in volume because it isn't as thick. Fools grasp onto anything that encourages their prejudice and ignore the bigger picture.
Your pathetic attitude is driven solely by greed. You are content to squander the future of humanity rather than make small steps towards sustainability.
From a footnote in the ‘AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers’ comes this little gem,
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
Hmm.
Does anyone else see what they've done there? It's an admission that they're not sure of the role of CO2 in determining temperature. That's quite a statement and makes a mockery of their 95% confidence claim.
It would appear that disagreement is the new consensus.
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
Hmm.
Does anyone else see what they've done there? It's an admission that they're not sure of the role of CO2 in determining temperature. That's quite a statement and makes a mockery of their 95% confidence claim.
It would appear that disagreement is the new consensus.
It might be useful, Birdie, if you were to set the context for that particular disclaimer.
From the same document, the paragraph in full
"The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)
16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus
less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2} "
No disagreement there.
A few other summary statements you neglected to offer us;
"Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in themagnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. {Box 12.2, Box 13.1} "
"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}"
"Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5} "
"The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily
from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}"
So no, disagreement is not the new consensus. The consensus remains as it was, with greater confidence and greater observational data to support that consensus.
"Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9} "
No disagreement between them on the role of AGW there, either.
"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {Chapters 6, 11, 12, 13, 14} "
Or there.
"Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification. {6.4}"
Or here, either.
I do not believe cherry-picking one footnote as evidence of a lack of consensus without offering the context from which the footnote referred to, or indeed the other summary statements can be regarded as significant.
And for those who wish to peruse the WG1 2013 report;
http://
From the same document, the paragraph in full
"The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)
16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus
less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2} "
No disagreement there.
A few other summary statements you neglected to offer us;
"Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in themagnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. {Box 12.2, Box 13.1} "
"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}"
"Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5} "
"The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily
from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}"
So no, disagreement is not the new consensus. The consensus remains as it was, with greater confidence and greater observational data to support that consensus.
"Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9} "
No disagreement between them on the role of AGW there, either.
"Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {Chapters 6, 11, 12, 13, 14} "
Or there.
"Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification. {6.4}"
Or here, either.
I do not believe cherry-picking one footnote as evidence of a lack of consensus without offering the context from which the footnote referred to, or indeed the other summary statements can be regarded as significant.
And for those who wish to peruse the WG1 2013 report;
http://
With a certain amount of care, one could cherry-pick through various aspects of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and fin equal areas of doubt, and then say that ha! - the model must be entirely wrong. That's not the way to read things. And besides, there is always some element of doubt or uncertainty in any Scientific Theory, usually as an origin of two things: The world is too complicated, and the models are too "simple" (relatively speaking). Climate Change is no different, and much will remain to be understood. But that does not stop the overarching theme, that Humans are in large part responsible for the current changes in Climate, from being agreed upon.
LG -
I wasn't attempting to offer a series of summary statements. I simply reproduced a specific statement from the IPCC's own report that rather casts doubt on the 'certainty' of the effect of CO2 with regards to warming. My comment about disagreement being the new consensus was obviously facetious but it does raise very real questions about the validity of their projections. No amount of dismissing it as having been taken out of context can detract from the fact that one of the IPCC's central claims looks rather less certain than they would like to have us all believe.
The statement, “... The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification...” is an intriguing one. Here's what MIT Climate Scientist and former IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen has had to say about it:
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Quite.
Many of the other statements in the AR5 summary which you reproduce above are simply conjecture at this point. Since the full report has not yet been officially released we cannot check to see whether the claims made in the summary stand up to scrutiny or not. Of course, that's really the point of releasing the summary before the main report – get the story out in the media and into the (inter)national consciousness before anyone has a chance to check the actual published data contained within the report itself.
I wasn't attempting to offer a series of summary statements. I simply reproduced a specific statement from the IPCC's own report that rather casts doubt on the 'certainty' of the effect of CO2 with regards to warming. My comment about disagreement being the new consensus was obviously facetious but it does raise very real questions about the validity of their projections. No amount of dismissing it as having been taken out of context can detract from the fact that one of the IPCC's central claims looks rather less certain than they would like to have us all believe.
The statement, “... The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification...” is an intriguing one. Here's what MIT Climate Scientist and former IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen has had to say about it:
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Quite.
Many of the other statements in the AR5 summary which you reproduce above are simply conjecture at this point. Since the full report has not yet been officially released we cannot check to see whether the claims made in the summary stand up to scrutiny or not. Of course, that's really the point of releasing the summary before the main report – get the story out in the media and into the (inter)national consciousness before anyone has a chance to check the actual published data contained within the report itself.
@Birdie
"I simply reproduced a specific statement from the IPCC's own report that rather casts doubt on the 'certainty' of the effect of CO2 with regards to warming"
No, you did not. You offered an out of context footnote and assigned your own interpretation to what that mean, without offering the original statement to which the footnote referred. Cherry-picking, in other words.
And Birdie, if you want to offer up a critique of the report based upon cherry-picking a footnote from the summary, it is surely equally valid to offer up all those summary statements of consensus that utterly refute your contentions in the first place?
Continue to refute the reports as you will. Only when climate change deniers can offer a model of the trends in climate based upon observation and evidence that better matches the observations to date will it be worth reconsidering what they have to say as having any validity at all.
The opinion of one individual,especially one who is a well known climate change denier, can safely be dismissed unless they can offer observations, data and evidence that better support the trends in the climate - and they cannot. This is the same guy who, back in 2012, said " If I am wrong, we will know in 50 years and can do something". The same guy who tried to claim back in February 2012 that there had been no warming since 1997, despite 2010 being the hottest year on record.I have no confidence in this individuals views, personally.
"I simply reproduced a specific statement from the IPCC's own report that rather casts doubt on the 'certainty' of the effect of CO2 with regards to warming"
No, you did not. You offered an out of context footnote and assigned your own interpretation to what that mean, without offering the original statement to which the footnote referred. Cherry-picking, in other words.
And Birdie, if you want to offer up a critique of the report based upon cherry-picking a footnote from the summary, it is surely equally valid to offer up all those summary statements of consensus that utterly refute your contentions in the first place?
Continue to refute the reports as you will. Only when climate change deniers can offer a model of the trends in climate based upon observation and evidence that better matches the observations to date will it be worth reconsidering what they have to say as having any validity at all.
The opinion of one individual,especially one who is a well known climate change denier, can safely be dismissed unless they can offer observations, data and evidence that better support the trends in the climate - and they cannot. This is the same guy who, back in 2012, said " If I am wrong, we will know in 50 years and can do something". The same guy who tried to claim back in February 2012 that there had been no warming since 1997, despite 2010 being the hottest year on record.I have no confidence in this individuals views, personally.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles134 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles150 mins ago
