How climate change alters regional climate in unpredictable ways

[Vanamonde]

Knock off the personal attacks and get back to the topic, please.

[peadar1987]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Of course not, because it doesn't.

More energy gets blocked on its way in precisely [B]because[/B] there's more energy coming in. Less energy trying to cross? Less energy blocked. And (also contrary to what you claimed up above) that property holds regardless of what the percentage is. Smaller than half, slightly more than half, 99.999%, doesn't matter. Basic thermodynamics. (your "which is why CO2 is better at" claim was a total non sequitur)
[/quote]
If there was a significant difference between energy in and energy out, the earth would be warming up. You have repeatedly claimed that this is not the case:
[IMG]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/global_energy_budget_components.png[/IMG]
[I][URL="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php"]Source: NASA[/URL][/I]

As you can see, incident radiation from the sun is actually [I]less[/I] than the radiation emitted by the earth at ground level.

[quote]
No they won't. It's old news.[/QUOTE]

Oh how wonderful. Then I suppose you'll have absolutely no trouble linking to a source that says this then? Multiple sources, ideally, if it's so well known.

[adsii1970]

[quote name='PB666']wouldn't it be great if we could move all climate change deniers to the bikini islands or florida city and just keep them there.[/QUOTE]

I sure hope you are kidding about this. I do not deny climate change, as the Earth has a long record of climate change. I do, however, reject the idea of man-caused global climate change for several reasons:

Firstly, the models used by the ESA, NASA, and other organizations do not consider solar cycles or vulcanism as sources of heat. At least back before Al Gore began his crusade, even some scientists actually reported through National Geographic that one volcanic eruption releases as much chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere as man, in the industrial capacity of the mid 1990s, could release in 300 years. Yet modern supporters of man-caused climate change never address these two issues. There are other factors that are also ignored that easily fall into this category - such as the shifting of the Earth's axis since the great Indonesian earthquake. According to JPL's website, there have been about ten earthquakes that have shifted the Earth's axis between five and twenty centimeters. May not seem like a lot at the surface, but in astronomy and related space sciences, this is huge. For the ISS, fifteen centimeters means the difference between frying and freezing.

Secondly, climate change is a natural process. This has been highlighted in several posts so there is no need to "beat dem taters again"...

Thirdly, the "solutions" proposed by those who adhere to the man-caused global climate change philosophy are really not solutions. Punishing western Europe and the United States economically and industrially through heavy green regulations yet exempting China, India, and Russia makes no logical sense at all. I will use this example - if a room is a non-smoking room except for grandpa, everyone will still smell like smoke even though there is only one smoker present... This is simply another way to rid the world of capitalism pure and simple. Solar energy and wind power are neat from a novelty perspective, but cannot sustain a modern and developing society in the manner that fossil fuels have (What about all those eagles and Canadian geese who are killed by windmills?). Nuclear power, which gets a bad rap, is the obvious "alternative energy source" but somehow, in spite of the overall safety record, is held with a lot of disdain.

Fourthly, it does not address the faults of Malthus. There is this corresponding belief that the world is overpopulated, which is simply not true. We have no idea what the "tipping point" is on Earth. Everything is based on the work of Thomas Malthus, from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. His theory was flawed because of several reasons: 1) he did not consider the role of disease and pestilence on the human population; 2) he based his theory on the idea that agriculture was as fully developed as it ever could be; 3) did not consider the application of technology to overcome some of the issues faced by population. With all the famine in Africa and southeast Asia, there potentially is plenty of food, yet the United States, Canada, and most of Europe actually pay farmers NOT to maximize their production. Fresh water issues? Again, Israel has nearly perfected desalination; this is the answer to the world's freshwater "shortage" especially when it is coupled with reclamation technologies used here, within the United States (this is a newly emerging technology developed within the last twenty years).

Fifthly, it is about population control and global wealth redistribution. If one is truly objective, look at the advocates for changing society and then how they somehow exempt themselves from following their own recommendations. New York City's current mayor, DeBlasio, Gore, and others call for us to abandon our large houses and live in smaller and more energy efficient homes of around 500 square feet; use less energy, and now the movement is trying to rid our society from air conditioning. This is setting up for three classes of people - the politicoclass, the "approved" wealthy and entertainment class, and everyone else, who will be reduced to serfism.

Can local climate change be contributed or caused by man? Yes, but again this is on the micro level and not the macro. The best example of this is Russia (the old Soviet Union) and the projects that have lead to the death of the Aral Sea...

Now, if you were simply kidding, no harm no foul! :cool:

[PB666]

[quote name='adsii1970']I sure hope you are kidding about this. I do not deny climate change, as the Earth has a long record of climate change. I do, however, reject the idea of man-can used global climate change for several reasons:

Firstly, the models used by the ESA, NASA, and other organizations do not consider solar cycles or vulcanism as sources of heat. At least back before Al Gore began his crusade, even some scientists actually reported through National Geographic that one volcanic eruption releases as much chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere as man, in the industrial capacity of the mid 1990s, could release in 300 years. Yet modern supporters of man-caused climate change never address these two issues. There are other factors that are also ignored that easily fall into this category - such as the shifting of the Earth's axis since the great Indonesian earthquake. According to JPL's website, there have been about ten earthquakes that have shifted the Earth's axis between five and twenty centimeters. May not seem like a lot at the surface, but in astronomy and related space sciences, this is huge. For the ISS, fifteen centimeters means the difference between frying and freezing.

Secondly, climate change is a natural process. This has been highlighted in several posts so there is no need to "beat dem taters again"...

Thirdly, the "solutions" proposed by those who adhere to the man-caused global climate change philosophy are really not solutions. Punishing western Europe and the United States economically and industrially through heavy green regulations yet exempting China, India, and Russia makes no logical sense at all. I will use this example - if a room is a non-smoking room except for grandpa, everyone will still smell like smoke even though there is only one smoker present... This is simply another way to rid the world of capitalism pure and simple. Solar energy and wind power are neat from a novelty perspective, but cannot sustain a modern and developing society in the manner that fossil fuels have (What about all those eagles and Canadian geese who are killed by windmills?). Nuclear power, which gets a bad rap, is the obvious "alternative energy source" but somehow, in spite of the overall safety record, is held with a lot of disdain.

Fourthly, it does not address the faults of Malthus. There is this corresponding belief that the world is overpopulated, which is simply not true. We have no idea what the "tipping point" is on Earth. Everything is based on the work of Thomas Malthus, from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. His theory was flawed because of several reasons: 1) he did not consider the role of disease and pestilence on the human population; 2) he based his theory on the idea that agriculture was as fully developed as it ever could be; 3) did not consider the application of technology to overcome some of the issues faced by population. With all the famine in Africa and southeast Asia, there potentially is plenty of food, yet the United States, Canada, and most of Europe actually pay farmers NOT to maximize their production. Fresh water issues? Again, Israel has nearly perfected desalination; this is the answer to the world's freshwater "shortage" especially when it is coupled with reclamation technologies used here, within the United States (this is a newly emerging technology developed within the last twenty years).

Fifthly, it is about population control and global wealth redistribution. If one is truly objective, look at the advocates for changing society and then how they somehow exempt themselves from following their own recommendations. New York City's current mayor, DeBlasio, Gore, and others call for us to abandon our large houses and live in smaller and more energy efficient homes of around 500 square feet; use less energy, and now the movement is trying to rid our society from air conditioning. This is setting up for three classes of people - the politicoclass, the "approved" wealthy and entertainment class, and everyone else, who will be reduced to serfism.

Can local climate change be contributed or caused by man? Yes, but again this is on the micro level and not the macro. The best example of this is Russia (the old Soviet Union) and the projects that have lead to the death of the Aral Sea...

Now, if you were simply kidding, no harm no foul! :cool:[/QUOTE]

Looks like i should add the lower ninth ward to the list, more space is needed. If BS were gold you would be a very rich man.

[adsii1970]

[quote name='PB666']Looks like i should add the lower ninth ward to the list, more space is needed. If BS were gold you would be a very rich man.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/"]http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/[/URL] <--- former NASA scientist.

To believe that man and his industry is the cause of all global climate change, how do you explain the end of the last ice age - long before man was anything more than a hunter-gatherer?

[peadar1987]

[quote name='adsii1970']I sure hope you are kidding about this. I do not deny climate change, as the Earth has a long record of climate change. I do, however, reject the idea of man-caused global climate change for several reasons:

Firstly, the models used by the ESA, NASA, and other organizations do not consider solar cycles or vulcanism as sources of heat. At least back before Al Gore began his crusade, even some scientists actually reported through National Geographic that one volcanic eruption releases as much chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere as man, in the industrial capacity of the mid 1990s, could release in 300 years. Yet modern supporters of man-caused climate change never address these two issues. There are other factors that are also ignored that easily fall into this category - such as the shifting of the Earth's axis since the great Indonesian earthquake. According to JPL's website, there have been about ten earthquakes that have shifted the Earth's axis between five and twenty centimeters. May not seem like a lot at the surface, but in astronomy and related space sciences, this is huge. For the ISS, fifteen centimeters means the difference between frying and freezing.
[/quote]I don't know where you got your information about the ISS from. If fifteen centimetres meant the difference between frying and freezing, some modules would fry, and some modules would freeze. The ISS is more than 15 centimetres across.

The earth's temperature can be shown over the last 100 years not to strongly correlate with vulcanism or solar irradiance:

[IMG]http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg[/IMG]
Edit: Sorry, copied the wrong graph across. Hazard of having multiple tabs open at once


For solar irradiance, you can see it actually lags the rise in temperature from the 1930s to the 1950s, then decreases as the temperature rises from the '80s onwards.

[quote]
Secondly, climate change is a natural process. This has been highlighted in several posts so there is no need to "beat dem taters again"...
[/quote]
So are floods. There is no reason to assume that just because natural floods happen, that mankind cannot also cause flooding through our activities.

[quote]
Thirdly, the "solutions" proposed by those who adhere to the man-caused global climate change philosophy are really not solutions. Punishing western Europe and the United States economically and industrially through heavy green regulations yet exempting China, India, and Russia makes no logical sense at all. I will use this example - if a room is a non-smoking room except for grandpa, everyone will still smell like smoke even though there is only one smoker present... This is simply another way to rid the world of capitalism pure and simple. Solar energy and wind power are neat from a novelty perspective, but cannot sustain a modern and developing society in the manner that fossil fuels have (What about all those eagles and Canadian geese who are killed by windmills?). Nuclear power, which gets a bad rap, is the obvious "alternative energy source" but somehow, in spite of the overall safety record, is held with a lot of disdain.
[/quote]
The Stern report estimates it will cost 1% of global GDP to switch to low carbon energy sources. That's not too bad to be honest.

[quote]
Fourthly, it does not address the faults of Malthus. There is this corresponding belief that the world is overpopulated, which is simply not true. We have no idea what the "tipping point" is on Earth. Everything is based on the work of Thomas Malthus, from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. His theory was flawed because of several reasons: 1) he did not consider the role of disease and pestilence on the human population; 2) he based his theory on the idea that agriculture was as fully developed as it ever could be; 3) did not consider the application of technology to overcome some of the issues faced by population. With all the famine in Africa and southeast Asia, there potentially is plenty of food, yet the United States, Canada, and most of Europe actually pay farmers NOT to maximize their production. Fresh water issues? Again, Israel has nearly perfected desalination; this is the answer to the world's freshwater "shortage" especially when it is coupled with reclamation technologies used here, within the United States (this is a newly emerging technology developed within the last twenty years).
[/quote]
We got lucky with Malthus when we discovered the Haber process. I mean, we could gamble again. We even know exactly what we'd be gambling on: Cheap fusion power within the next 20-30 years. Problem is it only takes the gamble not paying off one time for a catastrophe to occur. When you're gambling with potentially millions of lives, that's not a risk I am comfortable taking.

[quote]
Fifthly, it is about population control and global wealth redistribution. If one is truly objective, look at the advocates for changing society and then how they somehow exempt themselves from following their own recommendations. New York City's current mayor, DeBlasio, Gore, and others call for us to abandon our large houses and live in smaller and more energy efficient homes of around 500 square feet; use less energy, and now the movement is trying to rid our society from air conditioning. This is setting up for three classes of people - the politicoclass, the "approved" wealthy and entertainment class, and everyone else, who will be reduced to serfism.
[/quote]
I don't buy this. Perhaps some people are jumping on the bandwagon to try and increase their power, influence, or relevance, I think Al Gore is a prime example, but if you're looking to control people, distributed, small-scale renewable energy is not the way to do it. If I was looking to control the world, I'd make it dependent on a single resource, almost all of which is controlled by a cartel and a few major corporations. Like oil *.

*No I'm not saying that oil is a conspiracy to control the population, just that if you want [I]more[/I] control over the population, weaning them off one of the most easily-controlled resources in the world isn't really the way to go about it. Edited November 19, 2015 by peadar1987

[PB666]

[quote name='adsii1970'][URL]http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/[/URL] <--- former NASA scientist.

To believe that man and his industry is the cause of all global climate change, how do you explain the end of the last ice age - long before man was anything more than a hunter-gatherer?[/QUOTE]


looks like he found a way to pedal his credentials and sell a book, nothing new there.

[cypher_00]

[quote name='adsii1970'][URL="http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/"]http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/[/URL] <--- former NASA scientist.

To believe that man and his industry is the cause of all global climate change, how do you explain the end of the last ice age - long before man was anything more than a hunter-gatherer?[/QUOTE]

Roy Spencer also believes in Intelligent Design and he calls Global Warming deniers "Global warming Nazis"....

Yes.. he calls the same group where he is a part of "nazis". Edited November 19, 2015 by cypher_00

[PB666]

Not nazis, just easily decieved by the industrial-military complex.

tagging this onto:

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34859398[/url] Edited November 19, 2015 by PB666

[micr0wave]

The end of 'snowball earth' is basically made by the vulcanic emissions, given the long lifetime in atmosphere of CO² and his buddies, the lack of a biosphere which could have digested said CO², it could accumulate over a longer time and cause enough warming through the greenhouse mechanics to melt the ice covering the globe.

[PB666]

[quote name='micr0wave']The end of 'snowball earth' is basically made by the vulcanic emissions, given the long lifetime in atmosphere of CO² and his buddies, the lack of a biosphere which could have digested said CO², it could accumulate over a longer time and cause enough warming through the greenhouse mechanics to melt the ice covering the globe.[/QUOTE]


If we are talking about geological time frames as with snowball earth, its a maatter of increasing solar output that eventually does the trick. Increases in heavier atoms in the sun tend to concentrate in the fusion core, increase the density therein and increase the rate of fusion of other elements, in a few 100 million years, pretty much end game.


CO2 rise is generally a very short term issue, 10,000s of years. This will be no diiferent, with the demise of coal reserves and depletion of forest we will see pan evaporation rates go up, this will have tragic consequences on some areas, but other areas that are now waste lands will see an increase of biomass, if humans step out these areas will remediate CO2 in a few hundred years creating new coal beds. The problem howver is that humans disallow forest recovery, and just about every parcel of land that humans employ undergo soil carbon loss.

There are things we can immediately do to stop CO2 rise, one of them is to stop the burning of forest for clearing land, and the other is look to replace firewood as a source of cooking fuel. However this will increase global warming proper, but also increase rainfall in the semitropics and particularly in the Hadley cell. Both are easily done, trees are a valuable commodity, even trees cosidered waste have value in the building industries, but also brush can be ground and tilled into local soils pevent aerosol production. Better is to maintain a moratorium on the destruction of primordial forest. Even dried wood can be chipped and used for soil carbon.
Coal by itself is not the primary cause of pan evaporation rate declines, in south east asia its the aerosols of wood and wood that is converted to charcoal. The problem is so bad that in the region NW of chernobyl, scientist studying the behavior of farmers who had higher levels of bone strontium found that the cause was not so much drinking the milk or eating the crops, these lost there transferable radioactivity after the first season. The problem was they would till the chaff up and burn them roots and all, very easy to prepare the soil for the next season, but they burned soil minerals and then they breathed the radioactive strontium. Compositng would have lost the minerals for a season but would have kept soil carbon and soil minerals on the earth. CO2 problem is a complex issue it gets into legacy issues that were not so important when population densites were low and people lived 40 years.

This takes us to the core psychology of the climate change deniers, because the obvious truth out there is that social status symbols like hummers, lot corn-fed cattle dinnerrs at expensive restaurants, and big airconditioned houses, and of course we need a quad core 3.8 ghz cpu with a 250 watt gpu to play ksp all contribute to global warming. So then what we have are vested interest in opinions, which as we can see in this thread are boistered by books from popular authors. I see that alot because i live in a town that oil built and so no self-respecting male wants the gov telling him what to do with his 8 mpg ford duely that he uses to commute to his job as the company plumber. Of course that lincoln arc welder he carries in the back once every three years could be equally well carried in a rental, or 4 cylinder tacoma. The word progressive takes on a negative connotation because the alternative is that climate change deniers are wantedly embracing legacy problems to the point of economically risky behaviors. This is what happened in 2008/9 financial crises when many deniers ended up bancrupt trying to commute after oil peaked at 4.00/gallon, and the two of three companies that made these monsters went bankrupt.

But climate science does not pour from popular books and ex-spruts (political drips) it comes from the peer reviewed primary literature, the amount of literature in support has grown astronomically since 1980, several publications can from indivuals supported by hostile industries who found it implausible to deny the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Most people had expected global warming, more than currently observed. This undermined the models in two ways.

1. CO2 and gases in general do not like sea water, however CO2s solubility goes way up in cold rainwater and snow and inversions in the winter arctic concentrated CO2 in the sea ice as a reserve that forced CO2 into the arctic ocean that eventually found its way to the sea floor of the pacific and at such high pressures CO2 is quite soluble, and sodium carbonate in sea water is converted to sodium bicarbonate, acidifying the water. This CO2 enriched water dissapeared until recently, as it has begun rising up in the Pacific Northwest and spoiling shellfish fisheries. So this hidden reserve was found.

This gets to the heart of the climate change denier problem. CO2 rise could never be predicted based on the known anthropogenics, could it be predicted at all? Of course the climatology was never previously asked if you double the concentration of an atmospheric gas, whereall will that gas go. Even though the climate denier's science is far from perfect, they demand that the peer reviewed literature be perfect or they would not believe the theory. We can say the same thing about gravity, classic physics and relativistic physics. The deniers fail to understand that science is not an object, like something an engineer deals with, its a process. If we look at the CO2 level problem this way it was never a problem but a scientific challenge. It is still a challenge because we know the gas went down, so where will it come up next. You can protect a fishery using industrial lime enriched water, but its of little use after the fishery is dead.

2. The second issue was that even though CO2 levels that were evident predicted a temperture rise that rise was not evident. At the same time odd regional behviors were being observed, the most evident of which was that regions with intermediate climate were having long periods of hot dry weather weree interrupted by periods of cooler weather with more frequent decadal rainfall events, this includes the two historically severe el nino events that occurred in the late 20th. One key finding was the high altitude jet trails, and increases aerosol production over south, southeast asia and china where lowering the pan evaporatotion rates and lowering surface water tempertaures in specific areas. So basically at times and seasons were aerosols were low and incident angles were vertical lots of humidity accumulated in the atmosphere and increased the chance of decadal storms, surface rain water and secondary rains cooling reagions. At other times when aerosols where high the normal cloud rainfall patterns failed to materialize causing historic droughts, heatwaves, and forest fires increasing the levels of aerosols from dust storms over Africa and smoke particulates elsewhere. Since it was obvious that heat trapping did not have to result in a linear correlation with temperture, but could interact with other variant factors manefesting itself predominately in climate change.

This another core misunderstanding of climate deniers. When you apply energy or trap energy in a system, te trapping force only alters the dynamic equilibrium of the system. In this system there is water, air and a whole lot of space beyond the atmosphere to radiate. Instead of heating what else might happen. The level of thermoclines may increase, this has been observed in some areas of Asia. This would increase the strength of typhoons over asia, increase the surface water temperatures as has been seen in the gulf of Mexico, it could icrease circulation of water and wind into the arctic and increase transglobal energy dissipation. So we see that that afford faster energy transport out of the system can allow for a lower equilibrium temperture. Typhoons and equitorial/polar energy transports are ways the system is trying to cool itself. So now i have cut through the denier BS we are back to the topic that seeded this post. Edited November 19, 2015 by PB666

[micr0wave]

[quote name='PB666']If we are talking about geological time frames as with snowball earth, its a maatter of increasing solar output that eventually does the trick. Increases in heavier atoms in the sun tend to concentrate in the fusion core, increase the density therein and increase the rate of fusion of other elements, in a few 100 million years, pretty much end game.[/QUOTE]

Higher sun activity surely helped.
When look at the whole energy flow from 'outside' (space), what comes in, goes out. That equilibrium is somewhere at -15°C or so.
You could pump as much CO² and other things into atmosphere, the equilibrium will not change, just the location of that point changes.
The higher that layer is, the higher the temperature below will be.

[PB666]

[quote name='micr0wave']Higher sun activity surely helped.
When look at the whole energy flow from 'outside' (space), what comes in, goes out. That equilibrium is somewhere at -15°C or so.
You could pump as much CO² and other things into atmosphere, the equilibrium will not change, just the location of that point changes.
The higher that layer is, the higher the temperature below will be.[/QUOTE]

Solar output is in decline and the variation does not explain the rise in temperture when pan evap rates have fallen. Its not how much the sun puts out, its really about the amount that strikes below 3km in altitude.
Heat generated at those altitudes disproportionately is radiated back tonspace with lower secondary transports, particularly below the water vapor enriched layers of the atmosphere.

Or let met put it this way burning alot of aerosol making fuels cools the earth in the shortrun, but heats the earth in the long run, the full effect of every CO2 added today takes about 50 to 100 years to materialize, so basically you are looking at the added effect of all the C02 added years ago. If we stooped addingCO2 today, the temperature and climate change would still increase until all the secondary affects equilibrated.

[micr0wave]

There's a [URL="http://imgur.com/DqiA18y"]neat idea[/URL] for an emission free power source ;)

[peadar1987]

[quote name='micr0wave']There's a [URL="http://imgur.com/DqiA18y"]neat idea[/URL] for an emission free power source ;)[/QUOTE]

It's about time cats started being useful!

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='peadar1987']If there was a significant difference between energy in and energy out, the earth would be warming up. You have repeatedly claimed that this is not the case:[/QUOTE]
That the Earth isn't warming up? Yeah, that's my line. If the Earth's temperature is changing, it's not changing enough that we can measure it reliably.

If there's a significant difference between energy in vs. out? No. The Earth isn't necessarily going to warm up. It could, or it could cool down, or the temp could remain the same. It depends where the energy goes. If it hits land, the Earth will warm up pretty quickly. If it hits water, the Earth will warm up hardly at all, because water has a much higher specific heat. It takes a lot more energy to heat a cubic meter of water one degree than a cubic meter of dirt one degree.

Further: what if you were to head outdoors and go for a run, right this minute? Then your body would start converting carbs into heat at a much higher rate than it currently is. And the Earth would get warmer--even though the amount of energy in the system remained the same!

One could draw, from that, the conclusion that in order to save the planet we need to stop exercising...... :D

[quote name='peadar1987']Oh how wonderful. Then I suppose you'll have absolutely no trouble linking to a source that says this then? Multiple sources, ideally, if it's so well known.[/QUOTE]
No need. Basic thermodynamics. The amount of heat blocked by an inusulator depends on its thermal conductivity coefficient, the cross-sectional area across which heat is moving, the distance that heat moves, and the temperature difference between the hot and cold end. When the hot end is hotter, more heat gets blocked. When the temperature difference is zero, the insulator isn't blocking anything.

[SargeRho]

But Earth's temperature IS changing measurably. With the exception of some areas that are cooling down due to things like shifting ocean currents, etc, Everywhere is getting warmer. Land ice is decreasing while sea ice is increasing, which is another indicator of increasing temperatures, the ocean is heating up, And it's already known that CO2 absorbs heat, preventing more energy from escaping into space. Will it cause catastrophic damage to us? I don't know, but warmer oceans do mean more powerful hurricanes, higher global average temperatures mean higher sea levels, most of it from thermal expansion. Most of the warming IS indeed being absorbed by the ocean, that's already known.

So, what makes you more qualified to talk about the subject than thousands of climate scientists?

[More Boosters]

[quote name='SargeRho']But Earth's temperature IS changing measurably. With the exception of some areas that are cooling down due to things like shifting ocean currents, etc, Everywhere is getting warmer. Land ice is decreasing while sea ice is increasing, which is another indicator of increasing temperatures, the ocean is heating up, And it's already known that CO2 absorbs heat, preventing more energy from escaping into space. Will it cause catastrophic damage to us? I don't know, but warmer oceans do mean more powerful hurricanes, higher global average temperatures mean higher sea levels, most of it from thermal expansion. Most of the warming IS indeed being absorbed by the ocean, that's already known.

So, what makes you more qualified to talk about the subject than thousands of climate scientists?[/QUOTE]

Not going in either camp as I don't feel informed well enough but I see nothing in your post (going by it and it only) that suggests that heating isn't just part of a natural cycle but caused by humans.

[SargeRho]

Because I'm not well enough informed to make that claim. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real. The reason behind it is that we've upset the carbon cycle, producing more than the Earth can absorb, increasing the concentration of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. And we also know that CO2 and CH4 are good at absorbing infrared light, thus storing heat. Earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, but this one doesn't look like the past one, so something must have upset the mechanism behind it. Since the industrial revolution pretty much coincides with it, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.

[Dieselpower]

Hey More Boosters, thanks for dropping in.
There is the consensus among scientists that global warming is taking place due to the effects of extra CO2 caused by human activities.

In the last decades evidence for this has grown, and by now there have been thousands of studies done, and none of them could find proof for an alternative explanation, such as through natural variations in solar output or pure chance.

Here is a graph depicting several major studies which compared natural and human contributions to global warming:
[img]http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Attribution50-65_med.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57[/url]

As it applies to each and every scientific paradigm, I would propose that opponents of this theory provide [U]evidence [/U]that this is not true, instead of just casting doubt and making it appear that the work of more than 99% of the scientists on climate change provides not enough 'conclusive evidence'. Edited November 21, 2015 by Dieselpower

[Vanamonde]

We just had to close a similar thread because people in it were attacking each other personally. Keep the discussion here civil, or we will have to close this one as well.

[Guest]

[quote name='Vanamonde']We just had to close a similar thread because people in it were attacking each other personally. Keep the discussion here civil, or we will have to close this one as well.[/QUOTE]
I think you should just close it. People are never civilized about this topic.

[Camacha]

[quote name='Camacha']Please hold while another discussion worth having is being killed.[/QUOTE]

History will just repeat itself this way. Nothing will change.

[AmpsterMan]

[quote name='Camacha']History will just repeat itself this way. Nothing will change.[/QUOTE]

Science Labs.... Science Labs never changes....



Please folks, we close threads like these all the times because people get too upity about things; too passionate. Discuss the issues at hand not the issues with each other, and we should be fine.

[Camacha]

[quote name='AmpsterMan']Please folks, we close threads like these all the times because people get too upity about things; too passionate.[/QUOTE]

Threads get closed time and time again because the forum policies are broken in some ways. Whenever you try to discuss that in the appropriate channels, threads bleed dry, the status quo intact. I am done seeing a good forum go to waste like that. A few people not able to have proper conversations should not ruin it for the rest.

Address the offending people, remove the offending posts, leave the thread to live its life. That is the only way the endless thread locking will stop. I have said this years ago and still nothing has changed, even though the suggested policy has proven itself on much larger forums than this. Does current policy work out? The comment says it all:

[quote]we close threads like these all the times[/quote] Edited November 21, 2015 by Camacha