Four Months to Save Planet

[stevewinn]

Really cos you have shown absolutely nothing.

Just mouthing off about science you don't understand, showing you that you neither understand the terminology or the methodology. You have not addressed any evidence. You have not shown any evidence.

So until you can at least come up with a GCSE level argument Steve, you don't even have a case.

Why don't you educate yourself instead.

Climate Models CRU East Anglia University.

Shame really, i thought of all people you could have answered my two questions directly.

I was only asking for you to provide me with a link to scientific data which shows one hundred percent climate change is down to man. i'd really love to read it.

and my next question was simply asking for a link, or maybe your scientific opinion on why the IPCC climate models predictions are wrong when the temperature and carbon are linked. and also the inability of the climate models to include random cloud formations in their predictions.

But there you go, you couldn't answer so just decided to direct insults instead. never mind.

See readers, Can you not feel a sense of arrogant presumption of superiority of these people, Superiority of intellect, Then, when it comes to practice, down they fall with a wallop not only to the level of ordinary human beings but to a level which is even far below the average.

Edited September 13, 2009 by stevewinn

[Mattshark]

Shame really, i thought of all people you could have answered my two questions directly.

I was only asking for you to provide me with a link to scientific data which shows one hundred percent climate change is down to man. i'd really love to read it.

and my next question was simply asking for your scientific opinion on why the IPCC climate models predictions are wrong when the temperature and carbon are linked. and also the inability of the climate models to include random cloud formations in their predictions.

But there you go, you couldn't answer so just decided to direct insults instead. never mind.

See readers, Can you not feel a sense of arrogant presumption of superiority of these people, Superiority of intellect, Then, when it comes to practice, down they fall with a wallop not only to the level of ordinary human beings but to a level which is even far below the average.

Science is rarely 100%. Asking for 100% proof is meaningless.

I put a load of papers up. I put links up, I tried to explain to you how it works. You clearly never bothered to read so why should I both any more. Oh and I never insulted you, I pointed out you have not even made a case.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Mattshark

[Caesar]

Oh and I never insulted you, I pointed out you have not even made a case.

All you do is insult people if they don't follow your ideas.

[Mattshark]

All you do is insult people if they don't follow your ideas.

No, Caesar, I pointed out you where deliberately dishonest with data. I gave you plenty of sources. You refused to even look at them. I said you where ignorant, why? Because you openly refused to even address the data I put up. That is not an insult there, that is a description.

[SQLserver]

Well put. there are so many unknows and factors about climate change that its hard to say whats really going on.

Correct. It is really hard for you to say what's going on.

All you do is insult people if they don't follow your ideas.

*Facepalm*

Thank you Mattshark for tackling the deniers in this thread. I just don't have the time to today.

[Stardrive]

It would take more than a large volcanic eruption, it would take a super volcano.

Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.

Volcanic dust blasted into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling. The amount of cooling depends on the amount of dust put into the air, and the duration of the cooling depends on the size of the dust particles. Particles the size of sand grains fall out of the air in a matter of a few minutes and stay close to the volcano. These particles have little effect on the climate. Tiny dust-size ash particles thrown into the lower atmosphere will float around for hours or days, causing darkness and cooling directly beneath the ash cloud, but these particles are quickly washed out of the air by the abundant water and rain present in the lower atmosphere. However, dust tossed into the dry upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, can remain for weeks to months before they finally settle. These particles block sunlight and cause some cooling over large areas of the earth.

Source

Yes people and people don't want to hear that they are destroying the planet, which in so many ways, we really are.

I'll agree that the human induced GW theory distracts/deflects from the more important issue which is we are polluting the planet. If we don't take care of the planet then we can't expect the planet to take care of us.

And it is not glossed over it was analysed and shown that the sun doesn't account for the change we have had. There has not been a uniform warming in the solar system. That in itself is a bit of a give away you know.

For that matter there hasn't been a uniform warming of the Earth either.

[Wickian]

Correct. It is really hard for you to say what's going on.

*Facepalm*

Thank you Mattshark for tackling the deniers in this thread. I just don't have the time to today.

He's hasn't really "tackled" anyone. It's just been another back and forth AGW thread of disputable data where a graph or piece of knowledge that doesn't support your view is ignored or dismissed as "not credible" for various reason.

Also, you call me a denier, but I call you an alarmist...

[Mattshark]

Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.

Volcanic dust blasted into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling. The amount of cooling depends on the amount of dust put into the air, and the duration of the cooling depends on the size of the dust particles. Particles the size of sand grains fall out of the air in a matter of a few minutes and stay close to the volcano. These particles have little effect on the climate. Tiny dust-size ash particles thrown into the lower atmosphere will float around for hours or days, causing darkness and cooling directly beneath the ash cloud, but these particles are quickly washed out of the air by the abundant water and rain present in the lower atmosphere. However, dust tossed into the dry upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, can remain for weeks to months before they finally settle. These particles block sunlight and cause some cooling over large areas of the earth.

Source

Very minor short term change. Totally meaningless, the trend continues up. We have had plenty of volcanic eruptions and we still see a warming trend.

Your argument doesn't stand up.

I'll agree that the human induced GW theory distracts/deflects from the more important issue which is we are polluting the planet. If we don't take care of the planet then we can't expect the planet to take care of us.

Don't deliberately misquote me, it is dishonest and against the site rules and weakens your argument, not mine. Not only that, you think an a scientific theory based on strong evidence of us polluting the planet is distracting from us looking at how we are polluting the planet. You surely see the irony here.

For that matter there hasn't been a uniform warming of the Earth either.

Why would you expect every part of the Earth to warm, you cannot logically compare warming on one planet with a whole system, we have many factors that affect the local temperature. We do, however, see the planets temperature rising at a fast rate, we do not see all the other planets having rapid temperature rising.

He's hasn't really "tackled" anyone. It's just been another back and forth AGW thread of disputable data where a graph or piece of knowledge that doesn't support your view is ignored or dismissed as "not credible" for various reason.

Also, you call me a denier, but I call you an alarmist...

And a load of scientific papers. Don't forget them.

[Stardrive]

Very minor short term change. Totally meaningless, the trend continues up. We have had plenty of volcanic eruptions and we still see a warming trend.

Your argument doesn't stand up.

You stated it would take a super volcano to cool the planet. I provided evidence to the contrary.

Don't deliberately misquote me, it is dishonest and against the site rules and weakens your argument, not mine.

I was in no way “quoting” you, I was responding to your statement. It would be dishonest (not to mention rude) and against the forum rules to physically alter your original quote/statement in a rebuttal, which I did not. If you feel I have deliberately broken the forum rules just to smite thee, then by all means report me.

Not only that, you think an a scientific theory based on strong evidence of us polluting the planet is distracting from us looking at how we are polluting the planet. You surely see the irony here.

“How we are polluting the planet” is an issue not a debate. There is debate on its effects on global weather patterns. My point is if we address the issue, there would no longer be a need for debate on its effects.

Why would you expect every part of the Earth to warm, you cannot logically compare warming on one planet with a whole system, we have many factors that affect the local temperature. We do, however, see the planets temperature rising at a fast rate, we do not see all the other planets having rapid temperature rising.

Circular argument (no pun intended).

[Mattshark]

You stated it would take a super volcano to cool the planet. I provided evidence to the contrary.

And it also shows it was short term and had not effect on the long term trends.

I was in no way “quoting” you, I was responding to your statement. It would be dishonest (not to mention rude) and against the forum rules to physically alter your original quote/statement in a rebuttal, which I did not. If you feel I have deliberately broken the forum rules just to smite thee, then by all means report me.

Deliberately misinterpreting my statement then (which is also against the forums rules).

“How we are polluting the planet” is an issue not a debate. There is debate on its effects on global weather patterns. My point is if we address the issue, there would no longer be a need for debate on its effects.

Well their probably still would. But yes the issue very much needs to be addressed.

Circular argument (no pun intended).

No it is not. A warming sun would warm the entire solar system, not just bits of it. Warming planets have varying temperature across them due a collection of different factors.

[stevewinn]

can anyone give me the projected figures for temperature increase, and sea level increase over the hundred year period.

[Mattshark]

can anyone give me the projected figures for temperature increase, and sea level increase over the hundred year period.

There are numerous models

This is a nice recent one though.

Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in emissions (without policy) and climate parameters. Sokolov et al, 2009.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Mattshark

[stevewinn]

might be of interest to people. http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/index.html click calculator at the top of the page.

my total foot print was 5.89 tonnes of C02 a year.

break down.

Home 2.32 tonnes

Appliances 1.24 tonnes

Car 2.34 tonnes

[Stardrive]

And it also shows it was short term and had not effect on the long term trends.

And depending on the nature of the eruption, it can cause cooling as well as warming.

Deliberately misinterpreting my statement then (which is also against the forums rules).

In your opinion. My opinion is to the contrary.

Well their probably still would. But yes the issue very much needs to be addressed.

So you agree (in part).

No it is not. A warming sun would warm the entire solar system, not just bits of it. Warming planets have varying temperature across them due a collection of different factors.

So, some of the planets are warming due to natural causes while one is not.

[Bill Hill]

Is it dead yet?

C'mon planet earth die...

[ninjadude]

So, some of the planets are warming due to natural causes while one is not.

we don't have any long term climatological data for any of them except one - earth. Other than that, "warming" on other planets could very well be a seasonal or minor cyclical variation - like El Nino. So no, there is no other evidence of other planets "climate" warming. Unless you've been to Mars and dug out an ice core....

[stevewinn]

whose the leading body when it comes to climate change?

[Mattshark]

And depending on the nature of the eruption, it can cause cooling as well as warming.

Yes I know.

In your opinion. My opinion is to the contrary.

Well no, you made out I was agreeing with you while I wasn't.

So you agree (in part).

In part yes, we clearly need to address our pollution.

So, some of the planets are warming due to natural causes while one is not.

And some have no warming at all.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Mattshark

[Caesar]

whose the leading body when it comes to climate change?

Al Gore?

Edited September 18, 2009 by Caesar

[Mattshark]

whose the leading body when it comes to climate change?

That depends on which country. In the UK it is the CRU at East Anglia University.

[stevewinn]

That depends on which country. In the UK it is the CRU at East Anglia University.

so each country has their own. so i guess the question is, whose the world leader. all these countries must speak with one voice who is that one voice is it the UN-IPCC.

[Stardrive]

we don't have any long term climatological data for any of them except one - earth. Other than that, "warming" on other planets could very well be a seasonal or minor cyclical variation - like El Nino. So no, there is no other evidence of other planets "climate" warming. Unless you've been to Mars and dug out an ice core....

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events

On Mars it says: Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

But Abdussamatov’s critics say the Red Planet’s recent thawing is more likely due to natural variations in the planet’s orbit and tilt. On Earth, these wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, are thought to contribute to the onset and disappearance ice ages.

“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”

Source

And if you don't like that source here's another:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Source

[Stardrive]

you stated:

Yes people and people don't want to hear that they are destroying the planet, which in so many ways, we really are.

My reply was:

I'll agree that the human induced GW theory distracts/deflects from the more important issue which is we are polluting the planet. If we don't take care of the planet then we can't expect the planet to take care of us.

Do you see the word "you" in my statement? That's right, you don't. Actually this was a case of me agreeing with your statement. Which leads me to wonder why you felt the need to personalize our debate. If anything, your accusation that I intentionally violated the forum rules was an attempt on your part to play the victim and seize the moral high ground. I expect better from you in the future.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Stardrive

[Startraveler]

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Real Climate had an excellent article on this at the time.

[Wickian]

I don't have the links to them on-hand, but haven't scientists been discovering several new ways the sun interacts with the Earth's atmosphere in recent months?

It isn't too far of a leap to consider that there are unknown variables brought on by the sun that have a more pronounced effect on the climate than CO2.