How can we destroy climate change sceptics?

That's the theory anyway. The question is not, how much CO2 are humans producing compared to what the Earth would produce anyway, but compared to the overcapacity
..and a recent study showed that the capacity increases with increasing CO2 concentration. The proportion of CO2 emitted that is subsequently absorbed has been remarkably stable.


El_Machinae said:
The article is about 200-300 year oscillations in Antarctica temperatures, and the summary mentions how these events happened to build into the effects of the MWP and the little ice age.
Yes, but it does show that the MWP was not just confined to Europe.


I'm not denying that the MWP was warmer than now. But it wasn't all that much warmer. Less than a degree, IIRC.
Well, that in itself is quite an admission. ;)
 
What study? I'm seeing less absorption into the oceans in news results these days.

Well, that in itself is quite an admission. ;)

Wait, what? Why?
My position is that CO2 emissions are causing warming, that they've caused some of the warming that we've seen this century, that there's inbuilt warming into the current pollution, and that continued emissions will cause continued warming.

I am of the opinion that pollution that causes climate change needs to be either stopped or compensated, just like any other type of pollution.

I am concerned about tipping points. While the level of warming we're seeing right now has been felt previously in human history, tipping points will drastically change climatic systems. Again, unfairly. The loss of arctic ice is definitely a sign that the warming is unusual. We're seeing ice melt that hasn't melted in human history. As they go, we're losing historical data.

The medieval warming period was a bit warmer than it is now. We've still got 20 years of warming coming just from the CO2 we've emitted. Additionally, the medieval warming period might not have been a global warming even. Your linked paper shows how it looks like a confluence of cycles. The tropical regions, though, were (to my knowledge) not unusually warm during the MWP.

Finally, with CO2 emissions, my opinion is that the total warming will be greater than that seen during human history.
 
Oh man, this thread probably should have ended with Glassfan on the first page. Also I'm surprised the sun cycles haven't been mentioned as much as they deserve. Bast suggested that normal climate change doesn't occur over decades, but we know the sun's rises and falls in radiation activity to restart every 11 years.

I don't really want to gtet involved with AGW, call me a skeptic if you want, but I don't see enough evidence to support either side fervently.

Sun cycles do not deserve to be mentioned at all. They were proposed as a driver in a 1991 paper, but later investigation of the data revealed that the correlation between solar cycles and temperature rise was faulty.

See this 2003 paper for more info.
 
..and a recent study showed that the capacity increases with increasing CO2 concentration. The proportion of CO2 emitted that is subsequently absorbed has been remarkably stable.
I wasn't (and not planning on) arguing whether it's true or not, just pointing out that the theory takes other kinds of emissions into account. If you have that study handy though, I am interested :)
 
To destroy the climate-change skeptics, do more arguing in this manner:

ClimateSlide3.GIF

That seems pretty good, except you forgot the line from "Is it caused by man?" to "The science is settled! Deniers!"
 
Sun cycles do not deserve to be mentioned at all. They were proposed as a driver in a 1991 paper, but later investigation of the data revealed that the correlation between solar cycles and temperature rise was faulty.

See this 2003 paper for more info.

Thank you for sharing the article. I read it and it is an interesting counter argument to the one that I was hinting at. And actually you help prove what my real point is: there just isn't enough evidence to fervently support either side.
 
Well, we could put them in camps :shrug:
 
What study? I'm seeing less absorption into the oceans in news results these days.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/n...ability_absorb_co2_may_complicate_cop15_party



Wait, what? Why?
My position is that CO2 emissions are causing warming, that they've caused some of the warming that we've seen this century, that there's inbuilt warming into the current pollution, and that continued emissions will cause continued warming.
Just that by acknowledging something like that means that you'll be blackballed from the VAGWC.
 
The new research, conducted by a professor of Earth Science at the University of Bristol, shows that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
I don't understand how this is a new discovery. Isn't this usually the case? The concentration of CO2 in air increases, the capacity to absorb CO2 in water increases because the 'hits' of CO2 molecules on the water increases. This wouldn't be proportional to the emissions but the surplus. So there is more CO2 in the air, and the more CO2, the more absorption. Been a while since I did something involving chemistry I'm afraid. In short, airborne CO2 levels are rising but not as fast as predicted.

From the link in the article
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.

Also confused on this part:
The study also found that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team from the University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
Emissions have been overestimated anywhere between 18 and 75%, which is at least a factor of 2? Que? Don't you need an overestimation of at least 100% for that?

edit: Answered already. Ignore :blush: :)
 
To destroy the climate-change skeptics, do more arguing in this manner:

ClimateSlide3.GIF

Sorry, I don't think, and no scientist nor environmentalist I know of, thinks that "we're all going to die". That sounds more like the Christian fundamentalists waiting for the rapture or something.

Oh man, this thread probably should have ended with Glassfan on the first page. Also I'm surprised the sun cycles haven't been mentioned as much as they deserve. Bast suggested that normal climate change doesn't occur over decades, but we know the sun's rises and falls in radiation activity to restart every 11 years.

I don't really want to gtet involved with AGW, call me a skeptic if you want, but I don't see enough evidence to support either side fervently.

Sun cycles do not deserve to be mentioned at all. They were proposed as a driver in a 1991 paper, but later investigation of the data revealed that the correlation between solar cycles and temperature rise was faulty.

See this 2003 paper for more info.

Yes, most people who's researched this knows this.

Thank you for sharing the article. I read it and it is an interesting counter argument to the one that I was hinting at. And actually you help prove what my real point is: there just isn't enough evidence to fervently support either side.

You can say that about anything. The reason why you don't accept the evidence is because you don't want to, most likely due to economic or other reasons. It's also interesting you that you went from talking about Sun cycles to "just isn't enough evidence". Perfect example of flip flopping by deniers who will use anything and everything to deny.
 
Yes, most people who's researched this knows this.

You can say that about anything. The reason why you don't accept the evidence is because you don't want to, most likely due to economic or other reasons. It's also interesting you that you went from talking about Sun cycles to "just isn't enough evidence". Perfect example of flip flopping by deniers who will use anything and everything to deny.

The bottom line, in my opinion, shouldn't be 'What is the direct cause of global warming?' I think the point of discussions like these should be, 'Well, what are we going to do about it?' There's lots of research that could be done into alt. energy sources and more efficient machines. I wish arguing would stop and we could all be more productive.
 
Sorry, I don't think, and no scientist nor environmentalist I know of, thinks that "we're all going to die". That sounds more like the Christian fundamentalists waiting for the rapture or something.

Actually there are some. And they are among the reasons I have turned a bit sceptical on this whole climate thing. I think one of the turning points was when I read a commentary in Norway's biggest newspaper written by the leaders of a big Norwegian environmentalist group called "Natur og ungdom"(nature and youth). They wrote, and I'm more or less quoting here, that global warming will be worse than judgement day. I know that not everyone is that radical, it's just that it occured to me that perhaps all the environmentalist groups are exaggerating or guessing to some extent.

I suspect this overzelousness is very much a Norwegian problem though.
 
Oh, I see what you mean. You weren't saying that the relative sequestering would increase, merely that sequestering increases along with ppm.
(also, :gripe: at the spelling error in their abstract)

Oceans Absorbing Carbon Dioxide More Slowly, Scientist Finds


&

Oceans' Uptake of Human-Made Carbon May Be Slowing

Which is why I disagreed. I won't state that biomass sequestering won't increase as ppm increases
Just that by acknowledging something like that means that you'll be blackballed from the VAGWC.
Well, my opinion has been formed from my impression of scientific consensus & the data. The mainstream consensus isn't "OMG it's hottest now!", merely that we're causing warming & that this warming will potentially lead to tipping points. There are also acidity concerns.

My solutions to my concerns have been based on my understanding of how free markets work efficiently.

ziggs, if the over estimation is 75%, then it's 25% what we thought it was. Or, we're were wrong by a factor of four.
 
Actually there are some. And they are among the reasons I have turned a bit sceptical on this whole climate thing. I think one of the turning points was when I read a commentary in Norway's biggest newspaper written by the leaders of a big Norwegian environmentalist group called "Natur og ungdom"(nature and youth). They wrote, and I'm more or less quoting here, that global warming will be worse than judgement day. I know that not everyone is that radical, it's just that it occured to me that perhaps all the environmentalist groups are exaggerating or guessing to some extent.

I suspect this overzelousness is very much a Norwegian problem though.
On that note, did you see Aftenposten today, specifically the article "Stø kurs mot kollaps"? They had let a philosophy professor comment on the climate change issue, and he demonstrated fairly well that he was outside his field. He talked about, among other things:

-Having as a premise that economic growth requires sustainable development. (bærekraftig utvikling)
History proves this trivially wrong. The closest reasonable belief I can interpret this to be an extended typo for is that lack of sustainable development will eventually put a forcible end to economic growth due to disasters.

-He then says that the facts have been against this, immediately non sequiturs to saying that this shows how the premise has enjoyed global authority
WTH?

-Regulating advertising directed towards ecologically harmful consumption
Grasp the nettle. Restrict ecologically harmful consumption directly. For that matter, restrict ecologically harmful things directly. Bringing up advertising sounds very much like a personal grievance.

-Our present situation is like a nightmare because we're going to have more than two degrees of warming, and four will be irreconcilable with life as we know it.
Vacuously true, else false. "Life as we know it" in the past has arguably been irreconcilable with things that later happened, were invented, or were discovered. Four degrees of warming is going to drive temperature-sensitive species towards the poles, but is not going to stop people farming, fleeing, fighting or mating (the four Fs), destroy all SUVs, take away his philosophy degree, etc. (And just to nitpick, it's the future that's like a nightmare. When it's going well before it turns horrid, that's usually called a dream.)


Sorry, I don't think, and no scientist nor environmentalist I know of, thinks that "we're all going to die". That sounds more like the Christian fundamentalists waiting for the rapture or something.
Well, I asked one of your fellow warm-mongers if he wants to "destroy the skeptics" and he said that that sounded like something Christian fundamentalists wanted to do.

What dogma of climate change is it that is so important that it must not be questioned? :mischief:
 
Global warming: Kenyan tribes battle over what's left of water
Kenyan tribes fight for what's left of the water

By Edmund Sanders Tribune Newspapers
November 29, 2009

ISIOLO, Kenya — - Have the climate wars of Africa begun?

Tales of conflict emerging from this remote, arid region of Kenya have disturbing echoes of the lethal building blocks that turned Darfur into a killing ground in western Sudan.

Tribes that lived side by side for decades say they have been pushed to warfare by competition for disappearing water and pasture. The government is accused of exacerbating tensions by taking sides and arming combatants who once used spears and arrows.

The aim, all sides say, is no longer just to steal land or cattle, but to drive the enemy away forever.

It's a combustible mix of forces that the United Nations estimates has resulted in at least 400 deaths in northern Kenya this year. Moreover, experts worry that it's just the beginning of a new era of climate-driven conflict in Africa.

"There is a lesson in Darfur," said Richard Odingo, vice chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global scientific body that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. "Every dry area has the potential to be a flash point if we are not careful."

Africa is no stranger to conflict: The continent has been rocked by war, ethnic hatred, post-colonial border disputes and competition for resources, including oil and diamonds. But as the deserts encroach in Sudan, rainfall declines in the Horn of Africa -- a 15 percent decrease is predicted over the next few decades -- and fresh water evaporates in the south, climate change is transforming conflicts and kicking old tensions into overdrive.

"Climate change amplifies and escalates vulnerability," said Achim Steiner, director of the U.N. Environment Program. "It doesn't mean that conflict is inevitable, but it's much more likely."

Scientific and anecdotal evidence is mounting that the changes under way here are more than climatic variation. Droughts that once appeared every decade now hit every two or three years. Icecaps atop Mount Kenya and Mount Kilimanjaro are evaporating.

But conflict is perhaps the most alarming symptom. Violence is becoming deadlier thanks to population growth and the proliferation of arms. Thirty years ago, a few dozen tribal warriors with spears might have clashed at a water hole. Today rural communities are armed with AK-47s, and even national armies are jumping into the fray.

In October, Kenyan soldiers clashed with Sudanese tribesmen conducting a cross-border cattle raid. This summer, the Ugandan military was accused of using attack helicopters against Kenyan herdsmen attempting to graze their stock in their country.

In Kenya, experts say, the violence has become as unpredictable as the weather. Faced with the extinction of their age-old livelihood because of what appear to be permanent changes in rainfall patterns, many of the 4 million Kenyans who survive by raising livestock are embroiled in a fight with one another and with herdsmen from nearby countries for the remaining viable land.

"The situation is getting out of hand, and people are starting to worry about where all this is headed," said Mohammed Ahmed, a field officer with the British aid group ActionAid in Isiolo, where scores of people have been killed in recent months.

The Kenyan government has largely ignored the brewing crisis, dismissing it as the usual tribal clashes. But the drought has pushed Kenya's cattle-raising tribes to the point where they feel they have nothing to lose, experts say.

"It's a recipe for a major disaster," said Choice Okoro, humanitarian affairs officer for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. "We are seeing a militarization of their livelihood."

Okoro said it was a mistake to assume that tensions will abate if the drought ends. "It's different now, and it's alarming," she said. "It's not going back to normal anymore."

edsanders@tribune.com

Major changes
Temperature: Maximum readings in Kenya's Rift Valley have risen by more than 5 degrees in the last 20 to 40 years.

Water levels: Lake Chad has dropped by 90 percent since the 1960s.

Disease: Malaria is becoming more common in Kenya's central highlands.


Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-climate-conflict-1127-nov29,0,5953619.story

I think we can lay to rest the idea that climate change isn't horribly destructive to people.
 
the last 40 years followed a cool period from 1940-70

climate change toward a warmer world will accommodate a larger population. Ice age like conditions will kill millions and promote war between peoples armed with more than spears.

Jesus, where's most of the land? Its in a climate zone that will benefit from "global warming".
 
Back
Top Bottom