Catastrophic Climate Change - a heated discussion

[wearestardust]

Put it another way. What is at stake here that the issue can't be discussed in a civil manner?

[gibreel farishta]

Originally Posted by wearestardust

Put it another way. What is at stake here that the issue can't be discussed in a civil manner?

Agreed


Danish Met extent

The Arctic seems to be ignoring the lack of trend

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...3fe247f970d-pi

No wait, there is a trend, continued at the same rate for the last three decades,

NASA "The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.13 F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s."

[Upton Sinclair]

What a fascinating thread. Normally 'heated' climate debates revolve around whether it is real. Here it's about whether it's bad or really bad. Who would have thought? An internet forum full of sane people

[Upton Sinclair]

Originally Posted by owheelj

The problem here is you accept the worst case scenario (and change your mind whenever you find even worse case scenarios) and you are dogmatically assured that everything climate change deniers say is false. Actually, again as the data shows, it's obvious that the rate of warming in the 2000s was not as fast as the rate of warming in the 90s. But where the deniers are wrong, is that this doesn't imply that warming isn't occurring, that the link between CO2 and temperature is wrong, or that we should worry less about climate change.

This is my reading of things too. While higher sensitivity can't be ruled out, the weight of probability put's climate forcing at about 3°C.

For example, James Hansen's famous scenarios from 1988 didn't pan out quite as projected, observed temperatures tracked a bit higher than the lowest estimates based on reduced emissions by 2000 because the early sensitivity estimate was 4.2°C. When adjusted for current understanding of sensitivity it tracks closely to the observed record.

[gibreel farishta]

Upton, Gavin Schmidt NASA does the IPCC models and has a yearly update, includes how Hansen's projection is going each year as well,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...a-comparisons/

[gibreel farishta]

Obama appears to be stepping back from any commitment to a targetl warming of 2DegC, instead they want each country to set their own target rather than a global agreement

we ignore Hansen at our peril

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1208173647.htm

We must learn from the past,

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news...future-climate

[gibreel farishta]

This is one that is often thrown up by the sceptics
"
I sincerely hope that you are not serious in maintaining the following:
The peak warming is linearly proportional to the cumulative carbon emitted
It doesn’t matter much how rapidly the carbon is emitted
The warming you get when you stop emitting carbon is what you are stuck with for the next thousand years
The climate recovers only slightly over the next ten thousand years
At the mid-range of IPCC climate sensitivity, a trillion tonnes cumulative carbon gives you about 2C global mean warming above the pre-industrial temperature.

Even the lame IPCC does not try to maintain that warming due to anthropomorphic carbon emissions will result in linear warming. The accepted relationship is exponential.

The warming effect lasting 1000 years is not at all the accepted truth, ie that CO2 has a atmospheric lifetime of 150 years and I believe that s an exaggeration.

The climate only recovers slightly over the next 10,000 years. Excuse me just what were these people smoking to make that claim. the climate has changed considerably more than current trends, with out human intervention in as little as a century.

Please the only trends that deal in absolutes ignores the fact that this figure is still a small percentage of total carbon budget for our home. The claim that the amount is cumulative is not confirmed by the facts.

Why do you continue to print such nonsense. Will the warmers finally admit that their cause is lost, please!

Emanuele Lombardi

[Response: Yes, I'm seriously saying all that. You ought to try reading some of the literature sometime, including the National Research Council report on climate stabilization targets, available free for just clicking on the link. That summarizes the research on which my synopsis is based. You are confusing atmospheric concentration with emissions. Radiative forcing is logarithmic in concentration, but the concentration increases faster than linearly with emissions, since the more you emit, the less is taken up by the oceans and the more remains in the atmosphere. That effect turns out to cancel out the logarithmic behavior, giving you a nearly linear warming (at least up to about 5000 gigatonnes total emissions). All based on fairly simple carbonate/bicarbonate equilibrium chemistry. --raypierre Humbert

[Upton Sinclair]

Originally Posted by gibreel farishta

Upton, Gavin Schmidt NASA does the IPCC models and has a yearly update, includes how Hansen's projection is going each year as well,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...a-comparisons/

Thank. Gavin is a personal hero of mine, I've bookmarked that thread for future reference when dealing with deniers, should be useful.

This forum interests me because everyone is clearly not sucked in by pseudoscientific CT's around AGW. Could this forum be a good place to crowd-source ammo when encountering denier arguments elsewhere?

[gibreel farishta]

Thanks blackie,,
Upton, We get many sceptic or denier letters to the editor in our regional papers,
from the ones that i have chased up and replied too I find that most of them are Xtian fundies, we had numerous letters from one writer that appeared to be just a little mixed up quoting previously rebutted science, when corrected they would have none of it and just kept up with the repeated debunked claims,

a google search for the name and region, came up with this,

I have long been a student of theology, having embarked at an early age on a ‘search for truth’. I remain an independent thinker, however, and cherish my spiritual and intellectual freedom - the right to think and evaluate for myself. There are many branches of theology, and it is just as important to be discerning in one’s theology as it is in the field of climate science.

It is important to remember that Jesus said, “The truth shall make you free.” One of hallmarks of a cult, however, is the engendering of fear and bondage. I have come to view AGW alarmism as but another ‘religious’ cult, with its hallmark sign of promotion of fear and bondage. Its devotees, in their religious fervour, wish to enslave us all in their ‘worship’ of the false god of the environment.

It is the subversive agenda of this false religion that distinguishes it from true environmentalism. “By their fruit ye shall know them’, Jesus said. False religion engenders fear. Jesus asks us to have faith, including faith in God to oversee the natural realm. I am privileged to have experienced God’s miraculous, supernatural deliverance in times of crisis, in ways that, on occasion, have defied scientific explanation. Hence I have absolutely no doubt that He who created the natural laws can act outside those laws if He should choose to do so. Therefore I have complete faith that God in His omniscience and omnipotence is more than able to ‘save the planet’ if the need should arise. What we as Christians should guard against, however, is any complicity in the evil agenda of global domination, which the Holy Scriptures actually long ago foretold

so you are not always debating a genuine sceptic.

You could try crowd-sourcing here, separate thread for each issue,

maybe CLIMATE CROWDSOURCE " Climate sensitivity is low" as an example header

shit maybe we can even agree on something

[Upton Sinclair]

Originally Posted by gibreel farishta

shit maybe we can even agree on something

I'm pretty sure we'd agree on > 90% more more than on we disagree on

I was just excited to find a forum were the debate isn't around whether it is happening rather how bad it will be. I just agreed with the other guys arguments at the time, in any other context I'd be on your side, I'm sure