They Should Tell You Climate change

[manxman]

aye i see it multiple times every day where the consensus amongst the experts get it wrong, and 2/5 percent get it right.

13:20 Fairview
1 Deepo won 46.5/1 2.1% backed it,97.9% backed another.

12:00 Fairview
1 Lago Cuomowon 74/1 1.3% backed it, 98.7 backed another

 

[Burnt State]

alot of effort went into that reply, but again it is very simple, 1978 to 1998 1 degree rise in global temperature, 98 to 2014 no rise.

that's NOT global warming.

Well, actually it is. It's a consistent increase that's having noticeable effects. The most developed discussion of the links I posted came from the NASA climate folk who acknowledge some of what you are saying but explain some interesting nuances. Their discussion includes a look at how the two hemispheres (the northern hemisphere having the greatest industrialization) are responding differently to the many aerosols ejected into our atmosphere, and how they are having a stronger cooling effect on warming in different regions. So while it may be slower than predicted, we continue to warm and get warmer.

Now keep in mind the acidification of the ocean does not require many degrees more to screw the whole thing up. That's happening now in tandem with the melting of most glaciers. This will create an even more acidified ocean and continue to dramatically alter weather patterns in an increasingly more extreme manner.

While I agree with almost everything Tyger penned so eloquently, I differ in what our science can tell us. After all, we are not an entirely ignorant species. We can now see back through time across the universe to its far edges. We have left our planet's gravity, landed on the moon and have sent a satellite out to the outer rim of our own solar system. While the weather gestalt is indeed a complicated creature, we still know a thing or two about making data observations and sorting out underlying causes.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade — even as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas generated by humans.

Some recent research, aimed at fine-tuning long-term warming projections by taking this slowdown into account, suggested Earth may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas increases than previously thought. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was issued in 2013 and was the consensus report on the state of climate change science, also reduced the lower range of Earth's potential for global warming.

To put a number to climate change, researchers calculate what is called Earth's "transient climate response." This calculation determines how much global temperatures will change as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase – at about 1 percent per year — until the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has doubled. The estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC's estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell's study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C)."

Our oceans have been consistently dropping in pH since industrialization as a direct result of increased CO2 being absorbed by oceans and altering their chemistry considerably. This is all observable science and not guesswork. Fish and shellfish populations are being affected along with coral reefs and the Arctic food chain. If it continues at this rate the economic and biological impact is going to be a very palpable world wide event.

paper further focuses on improving our understanding of how airborne particles, called aerosols, drive climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. Aerosols are produced by both natural sources – such as volcanoes, wildfire and sea spray – and sources such as manufacturing activities, automobiles and energy production. Depending on their make-up, some aerosols cause warming, while others create a cooling effect. In order to understand the role played by carbon dioxide emissions in global warming, it is necessary to account for the effects of atmospheric aerosols.

While multiple studies have shown the Northern Hemisphere plays a stronger role than the Southern Hemisphere in transient climate change, this had not been included in calculations of the effect of atmospheric aerosols on climate sensitivity. Prior to Shindell's work, such calculations had assumed aerosol impacts were uniform around the globe.

This difference means previous studies have underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols. When corrected, the range of likely warming based on surface temperature observations is in line with earlier estimates, despite the recent slowdown.

But before we celebrate industrial pollution for having a cooling effect don't forget that this atmospheric pollution has increased asthma, allergies, lung cancers and has played havoc on the respiratory systems of the very young and old. Heavy metals and toxins are in everyone's bodies, in our breast milk, and childhood cancers continue to rise. So for me, my passion is about how we have, without question, made our planet toxic and given ourselves Industrial Disease. And while you may not believe me because I'm just a dumb horse's ass in the field, please listen to the following band. They didn't call themselves Dire Straits without reason.

 

[manxman]

maybe the chemtrailing is working, and slowing down the warming.

 

[Tyger]

While I agree with almost everything Tyger penned so eloquently, I differ in what our science can tell us. After all, we are not an entirely ignorant species. We can now see back through time across the universe to its far edges. We have left our planet's gravity, landed on the moon and have sent a satellite out to the outer rim of our own solar system. While the weather gestalt is indeed a complicated creature, we still know a thing or two about making data observations and sorting out underlying causes.

No, we agree. I was addressing a continuum - and something (in part) that was actually said on another thread.

 

[Rikki]

lets go back to 1970...

if only we had listened if only had we LEARNED...

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Earth been around how long? Global BS.

 

[mike]

Whether it is or it isnt, we should be adopting best practise anyway
Clean is always best
We need to reduce the amount of pollution we are dumping on this planet

And we need direct action to make this happen, not BS like carbon taxes.
The only thing that gets changed with a carbon tax is money and hands

It doesnt reduce pollution one bit

Our previous govt bought one in, the current one is about to remove it

Meanwhile back at the farm.........

carbon emissions to rise - Bing

 

[pixelsmith]

Burnt... Put down the kool aid. NASA or the IPCC are not credible sources of information on climate. Glaciers are supposed to grow and retreat, it is what they do or you and I would not be here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flipper]

Whether it is or it isnt, we should be adopting best practise anyway
Clean is always best
We need to reduce the amount of pollution we are dumping on this planet

And we need direct action to make this happen, not BS like carbon taxes.
The only thing that gets changed with a carbon tax is money and hands

It doesnt reduce pollution one bit

Our previous govt bought one in, the current one is about to remove it

Meanwhile back at the farm.........

carbon emissions to rise - Bing

This my point exactly Mike, they do not want to focus on what would cost them money but only focus on what will make them money by taxing us. The focus should be how can we live and not make our environment not toxic to life on the planet, I understand that you have had an extremely hot summer this year.

 

[manxman]

pollution is un-controllable in a fractured world, one world government could turn into a nightmare, but what it could achieve if a goal of having a clean planet was a priority, would be a relatively clean planet, but so long as consumers want cheap chinese/indian/pakistani/et al tat, then these countries with near half the worlds population, are just going to carry on churning it out, and all the pollution that goes up their chimneys, they dont care, it's all about putting rice on billions of peoples plates, theres just so much wrong with the world, there just isnt the cohesion amongst nations to do anything 'REAL' about it.

but dont be forgetting in 50yrs time coal/oil/gas exploration will be history, another 25/30 years, coal, gas and oil will be mostly replaced.

 

[flipper]

The poorer you are the more likely to have toxic chemicals or nuclear waste produced, dumped or manufactured in your area, city, or country. Think of Union Carbide's present to
Bhopal India. Our goal should be to do away with parks. Instead of saying to nature, "You can have this small area in which to do your thing while we rape and ravage the rest of the planet," we should be trying to create an environment that we not be toxic to the planet.

or Somali Piracy
'Toxic waste' behind Somali piracy - Africa - Al Jazeera English

 

[flipper]

Global Warming on the first day of spring here in Southwestern Ontario:

 

[Jimi H.]

Do you really think it's that simple, looking out the window?

In that case, your conclusion will differ very much depending on what window you're looking out of!

A curious and non-intuitive insight: because of the heating up of the arctic, temperatures to the south can fall. This is because the expanded warmer air of the arctic pushes relatively cold weather southwards. In short, the cold weather outside your window may reflect what's happening thousands of miles to the north.

I don't know how unusual it is to have snow now, where you live, but many will initially experience climate change, others will/do experience a definite warming.

 

[pixelsmith]

Polar ice is normal, why not check the data? Climate change is normal, thankfully we have climate change cuz otherwise we would not be here nor would we have polar bears. Glaciers are supposed to advance and retreat otherwise we would not be here. CO2 is thankfully recovering otherwise we would not be here. Why are some of you not in favor of being here?

 

[pixelsmith]

 

[pixelsmith]

Burnt what is the next human related catastrophe coming? Global Luke Warming? Global Warmcooling? It changes every few years you know.. I spose humans will cause the next massive volcanic eruption or astroid strike?

 

[flipper]

Do you really think it's that simple, looking out the window?

In that case, your conclusion will differ very much depending on what window you're looking out of!

A curious and non-intuitive insight: because of the heating up of the arctic, temperatures to the south can fall. This is because the expanded warmer air of the arctic pushes relatively cold weather southwards. In short, the cold weather outside your window may reflect what's happening thousands of miles to the north.

I don't know how unusual it is to have snow now, where you live, but many will initially experience climate change, others will/do experience a definite warming.

Well I cannot look out your window!

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt... Put down the kool aid. NASA or the IPCC are not credible sources of information on climate. Glaciers are supposed to grow and retreat, it is what they do or you and I would not be here.

Ok, so the people who did all that fancy science i mentioned above, NASA, who have been the most thorough in documenting what happens in our upper atmosphere and has had some of the most unique visible perspectives of the planet are what - idiots? can't be trusted? got their degrees from the cracker jack box? or no, wait, their Reptilian leader Al Gore makes them untrustworthy? None of that makes sense. Why would we not trust some of the most detailed and thoroughly documented historical data sets we've got?

As for glaciers - we did that one up and down previously. As explained in the past, isolating only one aspect of the complex weather events and histories on this planet is far too simplistic an approach and must be taken into consideration along with the other impacts as per the discussion on ocean acidification that this intersects with. This is often big oil's response to the discussion, to treat one aspect in isolation, as opposed to examining the interdisciplinary nature of the topic. It just isn't that plain and simple.

Burnt what is the next human related catastrophe coming? Global Luke Warming? Global Warmcooling? It changes every few years you know.. I spose humans will cause the next massive volcanic eruption or astroid strike?

I don't think I've ever called for catastrophe or made any predictions of the nature you are ascribing. That's the world you respond to - don't lump me into it. My discussion above is responding to some of the many diverse factors that are playing a role in affecting the health of various species and eco-systems, including humans. This is something you appear to be incapable of responding to as it does not fit the big oil "everything's ok - those climate mongers are just stupid" type of pat response to a very complicated situation. So if you don't have something reasonable, or at least well thought out to say, that doesn't fall off the Kock Industry parrot script, then why bother? It's just a circular event.

The planet is warming. It is having profound effects. The oceans are acidifying. Pollution is having a huge impact on our health. Humans play a major role in all of this. None of these are debatable events.

 

[pixelsmith]

NASA is fancy at data tampering just like the rest of your fake scientists.
NASA And NOAA Data Tampering Makes Legitimate Climate Science Impossible | Real Science
As far as glaciers.. it is that plain and simple, they advance and retreat like they have for millions and millions of years.
As far as catastrophe events, that is what your "side" has been predicting for years, global cooling and we will all die, rising sea levels and we will all die, global warming and we will all die, depleted ozone and we will all die, acid rain and we all die, it never ends.. ocean acidification? LOL do some research on that too.. wow.. you drank way too much kool aid..
The planet warms and cools if humans are here or not. Stop wetting your pants.

 

[flipper]

Remember when all "germs were bad and must be killed with every toxic substances that the chemical companies could make. Now we have probiotics in yogurt, sauerkraut and not white vinegar. Here is the ultimate change in what science says is good for you;
What is fecal transplant?

Your body has a lot of necessary (good) bacteria in its gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Fecal transplant involves taking stool from a healthy person and transferring it into a person suffering from a disease caused by reduced amounts of the necessary (good) bacteria. Fecal transplant is most commonly used as a treatment for a disease caused by overgrowth of a (bad) bacteria called Clostridium difficile (or C diff) when standard therapies have failed.
Frequently Asked Questions about Fecal Transplantation