Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Manmade Climate Change Discussion

Recommended Posts

As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't

 

The other two threads are:

Man Made Climate Change Scepticism Discussion

Natural Climate Cycles Discussion

 

Please keep to the thread (or threads) which best suit your views. This should allow for a more reasonable debate for all sides without the need for anyone to be defending their view, or attacking other views. As ever the forum guidelines apply in terms of not disrupting the forum with your posts, so please ensure that doesn't happen. 

 

This is an opportunity for people with similar views to get together, discuss views and related news, refine ideas and opinions and hopefully learn more about the subject at hand. It's also a chance for people who would like to learn more about the subject to read the differing views and  information, which may help them to form opinions and get involved in these or the more general discussions. So please treat these threads with respect.

 

Examples for this thread may be to discuss any studies/papers/media stories around man made climate change. along with current and future impacts of that change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VIDEO: The Global Warming Name Game Fox Concocts A Conspiracy For The Phrase "Climate Change"

 

Fox News has often claimed that "liberals" stopped using the term "global warming" in favor of the term "climate change" because the planet is no longer warming. Fox News' The Five, for instance, celebrated Earth Day 2013 by trotting out this talking point to deny global warming - even though 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record and each of the 12 hottest years on record have come in the last 15 years. In reality, it was Republican consultant Frank Luntz -- now a Fox News contributor -- who advised Republicans in a 2002 memo to use the term "climate change" because "'climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.'"

 

 

The term "climate change" was used long before Luntz's memo, particularly in the scientific literature. For instance, a 1970 paper published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was titled "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change" and discussed how emissions of carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere.

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/23/video-the-global-warming-name-game/193740

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So , who amongst us believes , from what they have witnessed thus far, that climate shift will be a slow and steady change across the decades and who feels that , with the aid of natural feedbacks/augmentations in the direction of change, we will see periods of rapid change interspersed with more mellow phases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean Coal Says 'Emitting Carbon Dioxide = Doing God's Work'

 

 

Fred Palmer now a lobbyist for Peabody Coal, then spokes for the Western Fuels Association (Big Coal association) says "when you step on the accelerator, you are doing the Lord's work". In a 1997 documentary "Staking the Globe- The Energy War is on!" by Danish journalists Poul Erik Heilbuth and Hans Bulow

 

Fred Palmer interview: 'We're 100% coal. More coal. Everywhere' The Peabody Energy chief on China, 'clean coal', and the US energy sector's funding of climate scepticism

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/mar/08/fred-palmer-peabody-coal-interview

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the few situations where a bit of forward planning and sense comes before short term profits.

 

Donald Trump's anti-windfarm ads banned over 'misleading' images

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/24/donald-trump-trump-anti-windfarm-ads

Not exactly the voice of reason, is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. His tactics are all too familiar...

 

Divestment from fossil fuel industries, maybe this will catch on elsewhere?

http://350.org/en/about/blogs/san-francisco-board-supervisors-unanimously-pass-resolution-urging-fossil-fuel

Which, in the longer term, ought to be considered unavoidable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow i think it was more the 'civic conscience' that played a part in the decision? No matter what the boom of the empty drum says we all know that fossil fuels are not a sound long term investment? if you are a believer in 'peak oil' then you know why this is but also, and this might be new to some folk, there is a new major power on the block who will not be as easy for 'big oil' to manipulate? Should China find a way around 'fossil fuels' to power it's ecconomy then it will go that way. If tales of 'big oil' buying up/bumping off folk through the 1900's that found ideas challenging the use of fossil fuels then, should China stumble across any of these then they will run with it, and so will the rest of us!

 

Fossil fuel has been diversifying for over 20yrs now so they also know their number is up....they are just of the mentality that will not give up their 'easy money' until dragged, kicking andscreaming, from it(IMHO)

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Cleese and Booth could have written this.

 

Roy Spencer’s Peculiar Prescription

Roy Spencer came up with this rather counterintuitive suggestion in an interview with Catholic Online:

COL: Let’s say tomorrow, evidence is found that proves to everyone that global warming as a result of human released emissions of CO2 and methane, is real. What would you suggest we do?

 

SPENCER: I would say we need to grow the economy as fast as possible, in order to afford the extra R&D necessary to develop new energy technologies. Current solar and wind technologies are too expensive, unreliable, and can only replace a small fraction of our energy needs. Since the economy runs on inexpensive energy, in order to grow the economy we will need to use fossil fuels to create that extra wealth. In other words, we will need to burn even more fossil fuels in order to find replacements for fossil fuels.

 

 

http://planet3.org/2013/04/24/roy-spencers-peculiar-prescription/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea level is rising -- and at an accelerating rate -- especially along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico.On April 17, 2013, the Union of Concerned Scientists convened a multi-state roundtable of city and county planners and the Army Corps of Engineers to discuss strategies being considered or actively being implemented to protect coastal communities from the increasing risks of rising seas and storm surges along U.S. coastlines.This segment from the Weather Channel highlights the roundtable event and describes the growing risks of sea level rise, which you can learn more about in this UCS sea level rise infographic (http://www.ucsusa.org/sealevelrise) and fact sheet (http://www.ucsusa.org/sealevelrisesci...).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the past year volunteers here at Skeptical Science have been quietly engaged in a landmark citizen science project. We have completed the most comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed climate science papers ever done. Some 21 years worth of climate papers â€“ more than 12,000 in all â€“ have been carefully ranked by their level of endorsement of human-caused global warming. We also invited thousands of the authors of these papers to rate their own papers.

 

Earlier this year, we submitted our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, to the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL). This week, the paper was approved by the journal. One of the reasons we submitted our paper to ERL was that the journal is open-access. Their articles are freely available to the public with no pay walls, which was very important to us. However, there is also a US$1,600 publication fee.

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1986&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea level is rising -- and at an accelerating rate -- especially along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico.

On April 17, 2013, the Union of Concerned Scientists convened a multi-state roundtable of city and county planners and the Army Corps of Engineers to discuss strategies being considered or actively being implemented to protect coastal communities from the increasing risks of rising seas and storm surges along U.S. coastlines.

This segment from the Weather Channel highlights the roundtable event and describes the growing risks of sea level rise, which you can learn more about in this UCS sea level rise infographic (http://www.ucsusa.org/sealevelrise) and fact sheet (http://www.ucsusa.org/sealevelrisesci...).

 

Is it really possible for sea level to rise is one specific place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure is Hiya! Eventually the oceans 'catch up' with themselves but anomalous heights run all over our oceans. if you think about tidal bulges dragged by the moon or low versus high pressure over areas of the ocean you'll get what I mean?

 

Certain regions are seeing highr rates of sea level rise than others but , obviously, as sea levels rise all the ocean levels rise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Greenpeace.

 

Last Saturday, the Arctic arrived in the UK. The I ? Arctic global day of action saw more than 10,000 of us around the world, in more than 280 cities, come together in a declaration of love for the Arctic. The day culminated in a massive effort from amazing volunteers and donated equipment, in the production of the biggest Arctic landscape the streets of London have ever seen - testament to the collective creativity of passionate people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a pretty good idea that oceanographers are aware of isostasy.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/coastlines-affected-by-sea-level-change-isostasy/4025.html

 

LONDON, Feb. 19 (UPI) -- Sophisticated computer models shows sea-level rise over the coming century may be uneven, affecting some regions far more than others, European scientists say.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers say parts of the Pacific will see the highest rates of rise while some polar regions will actually experience falls in relative sea levels due to the ways sea, land and ice interact globally.

 

 or

 

Satellites reveal differences in sea level rises http://phys.org/news/2010-11-satellites-reveal-differences-sea.html Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have loads of proof of sea level rise, from tide gauges to satellite measurements of sea level and sediment cores You simply cannot melt loads of land ice and warm the oceans without raising sea levels!

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

Edited by pottyprof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Austrian Alpine Club published the results of its annual terminus survey program on April 13, 2013. Out of the 95 glaciers measured, 93 retreated an average 17 meters in 2012, two were unchanged. Here we examine one of the those glaciers Viltragenkees.

 

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/viltragenkees-glacier-retreat-austria/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/

 

With battery technology getting better and better as folk want longer charges on smart phones and laptops it appears the day is approaching that has 'utilities comp,s scared. The day that the grid is only used as a 'backup' to most domestic homes.

 

As more and more homes dip into saving energy by using renewables 'lost trade' forces up proces making renewables more attractive so losing the utility comp more customers (and on it goes) all we are short of it battery technology up to the storage job as solar panels become better and cheaper. A good development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PAGES: Two Millennia Global Temperature Reconstruction confirms Hockeystick

PAGES (Past Global Changes), an international network of climate scientists  has released a paper with a two millennia global temperature reconstruction (), the most sophisticated one so far. It shows a long-term little by little cooling followed by a sudden upturn over recent 100 years, a manifestation of modern global warming. Both of it is in common with earlier reconstructions. Long-lasting cooling trend was caused by decreasing angle of Earth´s axial tilt (obliquity) and by changes in volcanic and solar activity.

 

 

http://weltenwetter2013.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/pages-two-millennia-global-temperature-reconstruction-confirms-hockeystick/

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Knock's!

 

Because of the way the public perception of the origional work has been tainted I believe there are a number of groups of scientists using far reaching 'proxies' to provide us with as close a recostruction as modern techniques allows us.

 

I would not be too surprised to see the next few years filled with hockey sticks!

 

Sad that big oil draws attention away from the job of monitoring present changes but the techniques being developed for gaining full atmosphere samples from varied resources is also a boon to climate science?

 

The better we are at looking at past relationships between GHG's Temp and orbital forcings the better we can see how out of whack todays changes are plus the ability to better see where GHG forcing will end up leading temp rises?

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/

 

With battery technology getting better and better as folk want longer charges on smart phones and laptops it appears the day is approaching that has 'utilities comp,s scared. The day that the grid is only used as a 'backup' to most domestic homes.

 

As more and more homes dip into saving energy by using renewables 'lost trade' forces up proces making renewables more attractive so losing the utility comp more customers (and on it goes) all we are short of it battery technology up to the storage job as solar panels become better and cheaper. A good development?

And still they try blaming all their price-hikes on 'green taxes'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And still they try blaming all their price-hikes on 'green taxes'...

 

Maybe that's there code speak for 'Green competition' leading to a drop in peak demand electricity.....supply and demand at work eh?

 

EDIT:Some folk would like to think unfair subsidies of renewables make their bills dearer so it'll come of a shock to hear the utilities complaining of the fact that folk using more renewables drops their demand over 'peak hours' (their 'cash cow') meaning they have to hike prices to keep up profit margins for their investors. Higher prices means more folk looking at cutting their bills by using renewables and the circle goes around again.

 

It is like the 'land line' in the 90's. Who'd have thought so many folk would do away with that in favour of their mobiles? Soon enough folk will maintain grid connections only for 'emergencies'!

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that science is now taking on the 'big oil' P.R. machine will mean that such myths are buried for ever.

 

With the hockey stick a faux skeptic would have to deny 'All' proxy measures to maintain the science is wrong/manipulated. every other branch of science is quite happy using 'proxies' as proofs? Look at astronomy and the discovery of new planets by watching their star dim, no direct 'sighting' of the planet but the use of another entities 'reaction' to it's presence? Just the same as foram's for temp reconstruction etc?

 

With science now ever more hell bent on crossing all 'T's' and dotting all 'i's' the 'pedant's quibbling' will soon be a thing of the past? Though painful the messing that Faux Sceptics have done has merely served to make the science more accessible to all concerned (with all doubt removed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...