Climate change?
- Thread starter locko24
- Start date
Geoff; here's a fact - the best case estimate scenario for a reduction in our temp by the end of this century from a CT and/or ETS is - let me repeat; at best - 1/4000th of a degree.
Let's call it 1/4 of a degree just for laughs.
I guess if you stretch the bow from here to the moon, you can call that a significant concern.
And, I wasn't looking out my window with my finger held up to the wind when I thought of that one...it was from a scientist.
Hey, lets start a third climate change thread and have em all going at once so it's more confusing? We can have 3 going at once?
Yep. Of course it will [dang for me though as a farmer]. There are thousands of climate scientists who have their own interests in convincing the plebs that agriculture will suffer.
Throughout the history of the planet, the warmer times have brought with it more plentifull life, the colder times have brought death and misery.
See ya's.
Yep. Of course it will [dang for me though as a farmer]. There are thousands of climate scientists who have their own interests in convincing the plebs that agriculture will suffer.
Throughout the history of the planet, the warmer times have brought with it more plentifull life, the colder times have brought death and misery.
See ya's.
That would explain the link between Tasmania, Bob Brown, and his green hat.
I Googled to see what I could find. What I found is that, from recent articles- eg realclimate.org, the best case scenario is that the earth will warm by 2C by 2100. That's enough to cause damage, but not enough to cause a catastrophe.
However, that best change scenario can only occur with strong emissions reduction. Without that happening, 4C warming by 2100 is predicted.
A modest rise will change patterns a great deal. There are areas where rainfall will increase, and areas where it will decrease. There are areas where the temperatures will rise a little, and areas where they will rise a great deal.
There's some maps on this article.
Yes, 4c is predicted by computer models that are well past their sell by date and didn't predict the last 15 years of non-warming despite rapidly increasing emissions.
Some scientists suggested this was an error (whoops!), others that we've caused the pause because we did reduce emissions, it's too short a period to reflect long term warming trends or they simply ignored it altogether and continued to ramp up the rhetoric.
Yes, but Weg; this is not a scientific study, so it can't be right.
They are only looking at the weather, not the climate...it's basically an anecdote, don't you see?
It's an anomaly in the trend....
I used to live in that part of the world and like Australia there are variations in weather patterns from year to year. Not every year was a white Christmas just like not every year had blizzards.
Where I live now, in South Australia recent studies have drawn a link between our long dry periods and the temperature and trajectory of a particular ocean current situated off North Western Australia and it's influence on the latitude of the cyclones and anti cyclones that pass over the state.
Just as in Europe the blizzard conditions are associated with a particular ocean current emanating from the arctic regions and how far south it travels.
It's these sorts of phenomenon that some scientists warn could occur more frequently rather than less frequently if the globe should warm.
They opine. Increase CO2. Increase global mean temperature. Increase extreme weather events. Less polar ice. Increased sea levels.
All over a much longer time than just a few years.
Last edited:
So that statement accepts that warming has previously taken place?
Anybody who is looking for denial of climate change will be able to pull up things to support their view. But there's far more evidence that change has, and will, taken place than evidence that it has not.
There's still been a lot of warm years recently.
wikipedia said:
The 1/4000th of a degree is what was claimed to be attributable to the effect of Australia meeting the emission reduction goal of our carbon tax.
And likewise from your link to realclimate.org I quote...
So we had a warm spell 1400 years ago too, and we appear to have thrived
.... I'd guess we've probably had dozens of them prior to that as well.I acknowledge that mankind MUST have an effect on climate. However, the 1st real question is How much impact ?
Followed by Is it necessarily a bad thing ? and Will the planet automatically adapt ? as it has done every other time it's happened.
The next question is Can we do anything about it now that is economically viable ?
and finally Should we bother ?, as technology is advancing so quickly that any efforts we make today will be dwarfed by what is possible within 20 years (eg efficient cheap solar among many others).
And somewhere in there should also be Why should the fence sitters & skeptics do anything when the believers are so hypocritical in failing to make significant sacrifices themselves ?
The scientists haven't got the answer to the How Much Impact question. 68% of climate papers don't even acknowledge that there is a human impact.
A huge proportion of the models they produce have been wrong for the last fifteen years - the much publicised Hockey Stick did a lot of damage to the cause, as did Flannery & other extremists. And of course the media are selective.
It's not really the climate scientists fault - there are lots of reasons why they get so much wrong. They have v. poor data (less than 50 yrs of quality data & a few centuries of adequate data & the rest is generally poor/low resolution), they have a sample size of 1, they can't conduct real tests on their only sample, it is an incredibly complex system, they've only been doing it for the last couple of decades, there are new natural impacts being discovered on a weekly basis.
Contrast it with the medical profession - they've been doing it for centuries, with hundreds of thousands of samples, with trials on real subjects, with good data, and these days they get the answers mostly right, and they a fairly certain of the limits of their knowledge.
I think in 25 years time we will look back & think how ignorant we were of so much. Until we get better data and models that work I believe views on climate will continue to be based on faith.
I personally think we will look back onto it like the Y2K Bug (remember that??) hysteria and shake our heads at the mass delusion of world Governments.
No it doesn't. As previously pointed out some parts of the world warm while others cool. The only way scientist can work out what the temperature was more than a few hundred years ago is by proxies like tree rings and the ratio of gasses in ice cores. The thermometer was only invented in about 1700 and it wasn't that accurate. They weren't exactly going around the world measuring the temperature in various places to 1/10th of a degree and working out an average. Even when they did it was still impossible to tell what the temperature was in the middle of the pacific, or over any body of water of which covers 70% of the Earth prior to that because there was no ice and no trees growing there.
Y2K bug? Yes I remember that as it involved a huge amount of work by people to mitigate it's effect.
Much firmware had to be rewritten or hardware replaced. Software rewritten or replaced.
I had to stop using my accounting software as the developers weren't interested in rewriting it. I had to start using a completely different program but fortunately the publicity around the problem gave me plenty of time to adapt.
It would seem to me that to forecast the next 100 years we should be looking at the last 1000 years. If we wish to forecast the next 10 years then look at the last 100 years. To do the opposite of taking a warming decade and project it forward 100 years is simply very poor science, way to small a sample to be accurate.
Most of the hysteria was promoted after a warming decade in the 1990s yet we see and hear very little about taking the past decade and projecting that forward in the same way. If we did then we can all relax can't we
Another interesting point made re sea temperature records is that the older sea temp records were created by taking the temperature of the water coming into the engine room on navy vessels. Naturally this was usually 4 or 5 metres below the surface, this is now being compared to the surface temperatures being recorded by satellites.
Common knowledge that it is much cooler 4 metres below the surface than on the surface, particularly in the tropics.
So this is why I believe we are being taken for a ride, all of these small things that are not done correctly or blatantly altered to push the CC mantra really cause my BS metre to ring a ding ding.
Most of the hysteria was promoted after a warming decade in the 1990s yet we see and hear very little about taking the past decade and projecting that forward in the same way. If we did then we can all relax can't we
Another interesting point made re sea temperature records is that the older sea temp records were created by taking the temperature of the water coming into the engine room on navy vessels. Naturally this was usually 4 or 5 metres below the surface, this is now being compared to the surface temperatures being recorded by satellites.
Common knowledge that it is much cooler 4 metres below the surface than on the surface, particularly in the tropics.
So this is why I believe we are being taken for a ride, all of these small things that are not done correctly or blatantly altered to push the CC mantra really cause my BS metre to ring a ding ding.
You often see on the evening news how "Today was the hottest day since 1852", or "Today was the coldest day in August on record" and so on.
Now we have everyone sprouting how the world is heating up...but it's been doing that since the last dinosaur looked up and said "what's that?"
And it cooled a few times too, I'm told.
This whole GW thing reminds me exactly of how a newbie turns up here on SS with a few charts and announces that properties are all of sudden too expensive - not like years ago when they were cheap...
I wonder how much emission there is from this lot?
http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoes.html
So they say. It's interesting thinking about how humans will handle an ice age if there are any of us still around in thousands of years.
That's where we have the advantage over other life forms. We have an imagination so will be able to prepare ourselves if we recognise it's coming.
Live under the sea and, or underground perhaps.
Mostly on the ABC....enough said.
Recent survey revealed over 40% of them vote Green. Explains just about everything.
Similar threads
