Climate Science

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

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…

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…

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…

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.

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

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…

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 …

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

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…

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…

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…

I've mentioned this idea before, as a way of producing fish, but it could also fix huge quantities of carbon onto the ocean floor if done at scale. You have a specially designed ship stationed at a very non-productive part of the ocean. ( most of the world oceans are ocean desert ) The ship controls a robotic electrical pump, on the ocean floor. The pump stirrs up sediment, and pumps it to the surface through a thin (but large diameter) polythene tube. When the sediment meets the surface, you get a bloom of algae, which naturally happens whenerver water from the depths upwells. The algae are then the bottom of a food chain, that supports vast clouds of pla…

The climate warming has been thrust front and center this year with Greta T and Australia. There is a lot of rhetoric about the urgent and immediate need to do something to reduce greenhouse gases and such . Some even get a little specific . But I don’t think I have ever seen a detailed plan on how to accomplish this and what the resulting world will look like . Hence this thread . So, imagine the US has created a cabinet level position on the crisis, as we did after 911. Secretary of Climate Resolution, if you will. The position is given near dictatorial power, with the ability to enact laws single handedly along the lines of executive orders . You are recruited to…

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…

You know, I feel like the odd man out on this man made global warming thing. Is it an actual thing? I don’t know, maybe. It appears to me that all information I’ve seen consists of attempts, through various models, to correlate atmospheric green house gases generated by human activity with global temperature change, specifically warming. — Correlations, where they can even be demonstrated at all, mean little to nothing because correlation does not mean causation. Only actual experiments can verify whether a correlation is in fact the result of some cause and effect. — However, no truly accurate, controlled experiments can be done to verify or falsify any observe…

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’m having trouble deciding where to start in this Climate Change thread. I’m not a climate scientist, so I can only make comments to some extent on the broad picture. I’m not a member of any group, and any thoughts I present are the results of my own research on aspects of the claims. As distinct from the general thrusts of arguments to date, I’m pleased to say that the IPCC appears to be becoming more conservative about the average global near surface temperatures. It’s a huge change from the ‘Mann hocker stick” and ‘Al Gore’ alarmist days. The 2021 Report Summary relating to temperatures is contained in Section A.1.1, which says, in part, -- “Each of the last…

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.

An interesting article from David Roberts. You might remember this quote form David Roberts. http://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncertainty Here is my favorite parts . So why are we spending tax money on climate change or climate change mitigation?

I need a good short debate that is very convincing to climate skeptics. I have come to believe that humans are making the Earth worst, by making it hotter. There are some who argue that warmer is better. The high CO2 is good for plants. How do you counter that argument? There are studies that show sea levels are not rising among Pacific Islanders. The islands seem to float above the sea level rise by accretion. Coral reef islands can accrete vertically in response to sea level rise | Science Advances Another climate skeptic claim is that when you compare the graphs of historic, and prehistoric, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, to the graph of average temp…

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

Polar bears have been taxonomically distinct for about 200,000 years. I'm sure they've witnessed lots of global climate CHANGE (I will not say 'warming') over that time span. The most recent being from about 1000AD, when the Norse settled Greenland, til about 1400 AD, when they couldn't hack the cold. Polar bears just hang tough. And they didn't even have polar bear Climatology PHD's to help them out. Maybe they ate them. Couldn't hurt to get some pointers on the subject of adapting to the climate you have, as opposed to the climate you hope for. Might not be doable. Seriously, if you accept global climate change, which I do, which includes both warming AND cooling, why …