Climate Science

Climate scientists are concerned with deviations in the average global temperature, but what does an average temperature mean from a thermodynamic perspective? Temperature is inherently a local measurement of molecular kinetic energy, and therefore an average temperature across a large region seems to have little meaning in a thermodynamic context. At best we could try to demonstrate that global average temperature is a predictive metric for some other variable of interest, but the burden of proof would be on us. I could calculate a weighted average by volume temperature of my car by measuring the dimensions of various devices and parts in the vehicle along with thei…

Most climate scientists claim that elevated CO2 levels will be devastating to Earth's ecosystems. However when CO2 levels were highest some of the largest terrestrial organisms were alive, such as dinosaurs, giant turtles, etc. There must have been an abundance of caloric resources in order for such large organisms to sustain themselves. How can we claim that elevated CO2 levels and higher temperatures will lead to the collapse of ecosystems, when under those very conditions the most demanding organisms in terms of caloric requirements were able to thrive? Based on historical evidence it seems like ecosystems would be more vibrant when CO2 levels and temperatures are high…

I am! Anybody else? It's still considered plausible to have doubts about it, right?

Greetings, I am trying to understand how serious is current situation of pollution on the planet? How long should it stand until everything collapse? I know it is hard to answer this question, but someone more knowledgeable than me should be able to say something more about this topic. Reasons and consequences preferable!

Alright, this thread is specifically designed to address all of SkepticLance's, and other global warming "skeptics" claims and/or misunderstandings. Here, they can present their position, and any evidence/data/references that they might have to support their position. While we can go on and either verify or debunk their claims. This is an effort to keep these types of fights all over the place, and more specifically to keep politics out of it. It's time to settle this issue once and for all. Hopefully, this thread will become a comprehensive compendium of why the so-called global warming skeptics are wrong. Well, with that out of the way, begin... So, to sta…

http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=9082151&m=1 Reported here by NPR and watching the debate unfold was no less compelling. "In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided. "~from the link above... http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=2938762 Also seconded here by ABC, who reminds us of fashionable alarmist rhetoric of …

Been in the weather field for over 40 years. A few observations: 1. Weather/climate is a cycle of cycles of cycles of cycles..... To infer AGW after only a few years of warming on our 4.5 Billion year old planet is like infering a bull market based on a one second up-tick in the DOW. The glacial ice/deep ocean record has been/can be sliced and diced by whoever wants to prove their point. Cherry picking data is not science. Data minipulation by E. Anglia in the U.K. a good example. 2. Prof Mann's (Penn State) Hockey stick is a perfect example of model "blow-up". Current 10-Day forecast models (U.S. GFS, the European and Canadian) will sometimes blow-up by da…

I'd love to see solar power get cheaper and take over the job of providing our energy needs. But at the moment, the true picture is never being told. Solar power is subsidised by fossil fuel. People need electricity when it's dark, and solar power doesn't cut it. There are ways of storing power during the day and releasing it at night, but they would make solar power hugely expensive. So fossil fuels have to do the hard bit, and solar power does the easy bit. But that means that fossil fuels are subsidising the shortcomings of the solar industry. If the solar industry had to supply all of it, they would be losing a fortune at current prices. The same applies to wind power…

Ok we know that global warming is a fact and it can cause the polar ice caps to melt. But my question is this, isn't the polar ice caps just a giant block of ice that sits on top of the ocean? So even if it melts its shouldn’t cause the sea level to rise a lot. Why? Because if u take a glass of water and put a ice cube in it cause the water level to rise, however after the ice have melted the water level stays the same. So if the polar ice caps is just a giant ice block that set onto of the ocean doesn't that mean even if it melts it shouldn’t cause the sea level to rise? Maybe somebody has mentioned this before but i can't find it anywhere. So am i right???

I want to do something that nobody seems to do; look at the upside of climate change and global warming. I live in NE USA and this fall has been beautiful in terms of mild weather and sunny skies. Normally it will be cooler and drearier. This data is not doom and gloom and therefore might seem alien, since climate change is usually pitched with only doom and gloom in mind. Why is that, since a climate shift will redistribute who will be the new winners and new losers. If you look at the media news, did you ever wonder why the news tends to present more bad news than good news? This can make some people can lose a sense of natural data proportion; don't think there is…

The debate on climate change often gets into the chalenging of data sets and the way these are interperated. The "consensus" is often quoted. This consensus has to be the IPCC's report(s), surely. There are many other articles which get sighted as some sort of authority on what the consensus is but lets stick to the actual IPCC one. They (the IPCC) say that the worste case scenarion is that we have a 6.4 degree temperature rise by 2100 which will give us a 59cm sea level rise. Since making that prediction the temperature rise has been lowered to a worste case of 3.2 degrees. So that would be halving of the sea level rise (less really but..) to less than kn…

Not sure what prevented you from clicking the "start a new topic" button yourself, but here it is Now: back this up.

If it were the goal to regulate the temperature of a planetary surface, would screwing around with atmospheric composition be the best way to go about it? I think not, and to my way of reasoning consider shading the planet(metaphorical "smoke") or the judicious application of mirrors to augment solar radiation directly to be more direct and efficacious. Obviously this has implications for terraforming new planets and since we are unlikely to find worlds suitable for habitation "off the rack", we had better get used to tailoring, if you will pardon another metaphor.

As far as I see it, I cannot find any reason why humans could have caused significant global warming. According to the data from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, there has been a steady increase of carbon dioxide levels in the air since about 1920. Then according to the data from 1979 to the present taken by NASA satellites, there is not a corresponding increase in the temperature of the earth. Instead, the average global temperature increased in a very shaky pattern by about 0.5 degrees Celsius. After that, however, the temperature change varies up and down quite a bit, but continues to hover around zero. Could someone please help me to figure this out.

I am helping my son with a high school project so I want to make sure i get this 10000% right! He has been asked to apply the formal scientific method analysis to the question of 'climate change'. I went to wiki and summarised the method to .. 1. Observe world and propose something 2. Show the Null Hypothesis does not stand 3. Propose new hypothesis 4 Produce quantitative model and falsification criteria 5 New theory holds a long as model is never falsified I must say, although it all looks so simple I am rather stuck. There seems to be a lot of vagueness in what is discussed and the model bit really baffles me. Any help apprec…

... the earth is heating faster. than anyone expected in the past. The New York Times

Our view on climate change, the point where we are today and predictions are the result of scientific breakthroughs, steady developments and of course technological leaps. All of the above components are the keys for the climate models, upon which we fully rely. Firstly, I would like to share a link, which is different from popular climate change and modeling discussions with its analysis approach. https://medium.com/our-changing-climate/climate-modelling-from-manabe-and-wetherald-to-supercomputer-jasmin-1c8d5d11431b My second point would be human impact and actions planned and being done for the nearest future. Net zero 2050 might be unrealistic. But …

All right, I think I'm able to group people by their underlying motivations finally. Why do you doubt global warming? I'm really curious how many people will vote #6 then link some crackpot web site. I'm assuming we'll see some Lindzen papers here, but then again he's never been able to advance an alternative model.

Possibly the best attempt I've ever seen at this sort of thing:

I found this map of the world, which shows wind speed in January and July (source: NASA). It clearly shows that in winter, wind speeds are higher than in summer, both on the northern and southern hemispheres. To me, this seems counter intuitive. During summer, I would expect that there is more energy in the atmosphere, due to more energy from the sun. More energy -> higher wind speeds. Apparently, the opposite is true. Does anyone know why this is, or does anyone feel like taking a guess?

Ophiolite and I had an exchange in the "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" thread. I did want to continue but the thread was locked (for being overlong) before I could do so. Hope I'm not stepping on toes by starting this thread. Ophiolite asked for responses to this - My own reply was that it is not an appropriate default position to take because most people do not have the ability to evaluate complex science and accepting what the overwhelming majority of experts in a field tell us is not just appropriate, for those who hold positions of trust and responsibility it could be considered negligence for them to fail to do so. Ophiolite replied that many parti…

NASA GISS has published their GISTEMP analysis for 2009: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/ 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on…

I found these links while deciding to take a look at climate change. https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm I was wondering the vadidity of what they said.

( PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I WERE WRONG ) The atmosphere of the earth = 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases . The atmosphere of the earth = total atmosphere of all countries so each country basically have to create 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases base on the area of that country . We can call the plant create O2 value and decrease CO2 value base on the area of 1 country is A1 , original O2 /CO2 value of country A without the appearance of citizens of A . When citizens of country A appear , they use O2 and create CO2 so country A have to create…

Came across this : http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs , thought it might be of interest to some. Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs Sunday, 09 June 2019 17:15 Roger I. Roots This article was written by Roger I. Roots May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030. In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochu…