Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes, the science is settled.

If you look into people who "don't believe it," you will generally find that they have some type of vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
 
DanCar said:
Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
It will never be "settled", but we have the big picture and from what we know now risk avoidance should be our primary strategy. In other words, if we aggressively pursue mitigation (decreased CO2 emissions) and we find that the risk is not quite as high as we thought (very very unlikely, but it's all about probabilities) we are left with the beneficial side effects: cleaner air from burning fewer fossil fuels, decreased reliance on foreign oil, etc. The risk of not doing anything and finding 20 years down the road that things are as bad as (or worse than) observations and physics are telling us is monumental.
 
it is was ever settled what would we do with a bunch of unemployed nerds?
climate issues are more of an art than science, people postulate certain beliefs that are based on many things that sometimes include actual scientific facts and data
 
It's a very hard question to ask on a public forum as people have made their minds up without doing proper research regardless of which side of the debate they're on so all you'll get is constant bickering so that a thread goes on for 50 pages or more.

Co2 levels have surpassed the 400 ppm that some have said there is no going back from and we will all roast in a hellish fire in the future. But global satellite records show a decline in temps in the last 10 years or more, 1998 having the largest temperature recorded. And gradual reduction since with spikes here and there. So if c02 is the highest it's ever been why are temps getting lower ?

Certainly in Europe the last few years have been very cool and here in Ireland we lost most palm trees and roses don't grow in December any more, we've broken several records for cold the last few years yet there is no mad media attention as the media don't see it as important or it doesn't fit the agenda maybe of the powers that be. It seems that wild fires are the only thing that grab the media attention and droughts and that man has to be responsible.

The polar ice is still there despite it supposed to be gone 10 years ago, in the U.K news papers reported so called experts saying that by the year 2000 children won't know what snow is, now proven to be a mad thing to say.

Climate science is a lot more about making predictions in 100 year time frame so people won't be around to prove them wrong.

We in Europe pay a hell of a price for energy with carbon tax etc and governments and research institutes get a lot of money and so do big wind energy companies are very heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

There is increasing evidence that the sun is responsible for far more temperature variables than we may have thought and the much decreased sunspots the last 10 years or so are what's bringing down the temps, with the oceans now cooling off as there is a lag, the oceans store a lot of heat.

Here there is a severe animal feed shortage, Ireland is hugely dependent on agriculture and because of the exceptionally cold spring there is a severe shortage of food for livestock, sure we had a mild winter this year but the spring very cold and the last 3 winters have been unusually cold. I can see already that the last few years have brought more chaos because of cold than what a few years of warming have done for us, and I do have to ask that if it gets colder and colder, or these winters and cold springs last longer in the future what impact that will have on food production ? I see that May this year alone has hardly brought temperatures past 10-12 degrees C and march being one, if not the coldest on record.

Ireland is not known for its sunshine or warmth but as a child I can remember much more frequent warm spels with a lot more sunshine, but it was also a lot wetter with severe thunderstorms that we just don't get any more and I'm talking 15-25+ years ago. 1995 being the warmest longest summer in my memory . And 1998-2005 broke a few records for high temps but since 2005 it has cooled off considerably.

I have heard similar stories through Europe, I'm not a climatologist, just an average man, but I have to see what's going on around me and I do have to question this anthropogenic warming that's forced down my throat all the time.

I don't think that for many many years yet scientists will know for sure or may never know the real cause as climate changes over thousands of years or even hundreds and I think there are too many variables to know for sure just yet.

But saying the debate is over is basically saying to the people that question the science to shut up that we are right and that's that. I think a few years of warming and a few of cooling are no proof of anything other than the climate is always changing and what happened in the past does not reflect what will happen in the future or even matter to the present, maybe the earths temps and climate patterns will just go back to normal as we see it.

But I'm sick to death of every weather event being linked to anthropogenic warming or climate change, previously known as global warming be it warming, cooling or storm.

That's just an average mans view.
 
DanCar said:
Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

What exactly do you mean by settled? Gravity is still a hot topic of research, as quantum and relativistic predictions disagree, but I'd not suggest jumping off a building.

For practical purposes, there is no realistic doubt that a large increase in CO2 will both warm the surface and make life harder for all.
 
o00scorpion00o said:
Co2 levels have surpassed the 400 ppm that some have said there is no going back from and we will all roast in a hellish fire in the future. But global satellite records show a decline in temps in the last 10 years or more, 1998 having the largest temperature recorded. And gradual reduction since with spikes here and there. So if c02 is the highest it's ever been why are temps getting lower ?

You are correct, see this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm a realist. How about you?
 
o00scorpion00o said:
But global satellite records show a decline in temps in the last 10 years or more, 1998 having the largest temperature recorded. And gradual reduction since with spikes here and there. So if c02 is the highest it's ever been why are temps getting lower ?
With 2000-2010 the hottest decade on record globally, I would say you have a strange idea about temps getting lower. If you are going to look at the big picture, you can't cherry pick one exceptionally hot year to try to make your point.
 
Stoaty said:
o00scorpion00o said:
But global satellite records show a decline in temps in the last 10 years or more, 1998 having the largest temperature recorded. And gradual reduction since with spikes here and there. So if c02 is the highest it's ever been why are temps getting lower ?
With 2000-2010 the hottest decade on record globally, I would say you have a strange idea about temps getting lower. If you are going to look at the big picture, you can't cherry pick one exceptionally hot year to try to make your point.

I'm not arguing the warming that has taken place since 1979 since satellite records began, I do question some of the ground based data, due to inaccurate records, removal or/and re location of thermometers, urban heating effect etc. However no one can deny the satellites which have shown an increase since 1979 to a peak in 1998 then temps came down with a peak in 2009 and have come down again. If this downward spike continues what will it mean ? sure it will probably go back up but as high or just a bit ? time will tell. Thing is though with current C02 levels why is it dropping if C02 is so bad as we're led to think and how much of it is caused by man ? 16 ppm I did read somewhere has been contributed by man.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Apr_2013_v5.5.png


The thing with this downward spike is that I've not seen such extremes in cold, or long term cold, and such cool overcast summers. Certainly since 2009 there have been record breaking cold events here and elsewhere in Europe.
 
o00scorpion00o said:
The polar ice is still there despite it supposed to be gone 10 years ago,...
And it looks like the ice in Anarctica intends to stay there. Sea and land ice in antarctic are both increasing and the average amount in 2012 is higher than the average for the past 33 years when records have been kept. At least one day in 2012 set an all-time record for Antarctic ice for that day of the year.

So how can Antarctica be setting ice records while the rest of the surface temperatures are experiencing all-time highs? You certainly cannot explain that by using the greenhouse-gas-dominant model used by the IPCC. Instead, it seems that temperature variations that are caused by changes in the amount of cloud cover will cause Antarctica temperatures to move in the OPPOSITE direction from the rest of the land masses. Why, because Antarctica is so reflective that cloud cover results in heating while clear days result in cooling. This is the opposite of the effect clouds have most other places on Earth.

So only expect Antarctica temperatures to rise during periods when solar sunspot activity is low or greenhouse gas concentrations are quite a bit higher, or both.
 
RegGuheert said:
So how can Antarctica be setting ice records while the rest of the surface temperatures are experiencing all-time highs?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
You see I avoid these websites like skepticalscience.com a pro man made warming and those that oppose man made warming such as wattsupwith that

You will find the information you want to bash the other side. And you will only get one sided information with cherry picked data.

One has to research themselves and be open minded.

I don't disagree with the warming has taken place but I do question that man is responsible, and that man is responsible for the 400 ppm C02.

How can ice be as thick in Antarctica as it is or was in the north if it's not been forming as long ? The same as when the ice starts to form again in the north it will take hundreds or thousands of years to reach the thickness it was.

Science can neither confirm or deny anything at this stage, but they do pay too much attention to computer models and we all know the reputation the U.K met have for predicting their warming and drought events in their long term forecast, such that now they don't give any long term forecasts, due to their computer models being very warm biased with too much C02 in the equation.
 
DanCar said:
Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
Simple version: Yes and CO2 is generally agreed to be the main culprit for the gradual global temperature rise.

Complicated version: Science is never settled. Put another way, it is 'settled' until a better thesis comes along.
E.g. Newton's 3 laws were 'settled' and undisputed until quantum physics came along to explain sub atomic particles violating some of newtonian physics.
 
o00scorpion00o said:
How can ice be as thick in Antarctica as it is or was in the north if it's not been forming as long ? The same as when the ice starts to form again in the north it will take hundreds or thousands of years to reach the thickness it was.

Science can neither confirm or deny anything at this stage, but they do pay too much attention to computer models and we all know the reputation the U.K met have for predicting their warming and drought events in their long term forecast, such that now they don't give any long term forecasts, due to their computer models being very warm biased with too much C02 in the equation.
I understand where you are coming from. But if you look hard at science journals and really take time to understand the process, you will know our common sense understanding is not really a complete picture. Thus real scientists speak in terms of 'probability', 'likelihood' etc. But because there are trying to be accurate, the common person in the street doesn't understand their language of use.

Also, dont confuse micro climates with global climate. For example: Temperatures going up in the inland can result in lower temperatures near the coast because the inland hot land is drawing cold air currents from the ocean. Thus a 'lower' temperature in the coast doesn't mean the planet is getting cooler .. it is actually quite the opposite that it is DUE to the result of a hotter inland.

This is also why the science is renamed climate change to be more accurate. But the root cause remains the same..which is global temperatures rising.
 
DanCar said:
Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
This is a very, very broad question, Dan. It's HUGE.

Science, by it's very nature is never 'settled' on anything. There never will be 100% certainty in anything, because each time one extends one understanding 'one more step' one can see farther - and that brings new questions and that leads to another step. That's the first problem with the question.

We've known about the greenhouse effect in general since the early 1800s, and knew how changes in greenhouse gas concentrations affect temperature in the late 1800s. That covered the basics - the greenhouse effect keeps the planet warm enough for us to live on, and if we increase the concentration of gasses the planet will warm.

In a very rough nutshell, all of the climate science work since them has been to examine each subsequent smaller piece. Like - if it gets warmer, how much warmer would it have to be to melt Greenland? Or if we add more CO2, how long will it stay in the atmosphere? Or how much CO2 will be absorbed in the oceans? And then...If we add CO2 and some is absorbed in the oceans, what will that do to ocean temperatures and lobster shells and hurricanes and the fishing industry?

Science understood enough about the greenhouse effect, climate change, how our carbon emissions enhance the greenhouse effect, and a broad range of potential problems that could ensue back in the 1950s - and US presidents have been briefed nearly every year since about the mid 1960s.

While science might not yet know exactly how a 3°C global average temperature increase might effect migration routes of blue whales, we know more than enough to know it's not good for humans or our food supply. Today we are seeing the melting ice, the sea level changes, the weather changes, plant and animal changes, etc. that were hypothesized in the 1960s.

Earth the Operator's Manual is an excellent and relatively quick intro to what we know and how we know it:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Etheoperatorsmanual

Here's a video prepared in 1958 for the Bell Telephone Science Hour
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY[/youtube]
 
o00scorpion00o said:
One has to research themselves and be open minded.

I don't disagree with the warming has taken place but I do question that man is responsible, and that man is responsible for the 400 ppm C02.

How can ice be as thick in Antarctica as it is or was in the north if it's not been forming as long ? The same as when the ice starts to form again in the north it will take hundreds or thousands of years to reach the thickness it was.

If man is not responsible for the 400 ppm CO2, isnt it a curious coincidence that CO2 rose from the beginning of the industrial age from about 300 ppm, where it has been for a long long time, to 400 ppm in a mere 200 years?

If you cannot wrap your mind around that, you probably will have a lot of trouble understanding the difference between arctic and antarctic ice formation. The shrinking of the polar (and Greenland) ice can be SEEN from satellite images.

There is even an animation of this satellite imagery, for the past 30 years, online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bHufxbxc8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Back
Top