EnviroLink Forum

There are lots of factors which can effect climate!

Fantastic result! You have joined the thinking side of humanity. The idea that you can predict the climate based on it's temperature behaviour between 1970 and 1998 is silly. Just as the statement that the absence of warming since 1998 and 2011 cannot utterly disproove AGW the rise between 1970 and 1998 cannot 100% proove the theory that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas at the levels we have today.

Northern Europe is having a wet and cool summer, it's just America which is having a long, hot and dry one.

When thinking about such climatic events it is vital to have a sense of proportion and not see a tiny change over 3 decades as a reason to think that there will be a drastic "exponential" continuation of this.

It is akin to having a graph of the speed of your car traveling along a highway. When the speed is 55mph your pasenger is happy, when the graph plots up to 57 mph the pasenger panics because the car is about to accelerate untill the machine disintergrates at the sound barrier. When the graph shows a slowing to 53mph the panic is of the sudden stopping of the car and the trafic behind slamming into the back of the car.

Climate varies about quiote a lot.

Because we live fairly short lives we do not rember the droughts of the dust bowl. We do not rember the medevil warm period. We do not rember the frost fairs on the frozen Thames.

We should take these dire warnings with a big pinch of salt.

The sea level rose by 18cm last centuary, how many cities flooded because of this? This centuary looks like it could be twice as bad, maybe.

Oh so that's how they predict the climate. I always thought that they also use fundamental physics amongst other things. That's why climate change due to increased carbon dioxide was known about long before 1970.

Are you really this dim Tim or are you trolling us?

He's a troll, spot, "rember"?? He can't even spell, let alone understand global warming and overpopulation, and related projections.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Nobody is trying to predict temperatures based on historically temperatures over the last 40 or so. The predictions are based on our understanding of earth's climate over hundreds of millions of years and particularly the last 4 million years of recurring ice ages. The climate while complicated has to obey some very simple basic physical rules that is the energy coming in has over time to equal the energy going out. Change that simple relationship in some way and the temperature will change change until such time as the equation is back in balance. It is certain that greenhouse gases reduce the amount of energy that leaves the earth.


No my original statement is correct
According to NOAA:-

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6


And:-



The temperatures changes over the last 3 decades simply confirms our basic understanding of the climate.



No it is more being in a car where the cruise control is stuck and the speed just keeps increasing.


This is why we maintain weather data which shows that the current conditions are both worst and different.



Dire warnings should be assessed on the merits and action taken if necessary but never ignored.


So as long as we split the sea level rises into 18 cm chunks it will be no problem ?
I am reminded of camels transporting straw.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

In 1970 there were dire warnings of global cooling.

If the idea of CO2 as a driver of climate is so clear why is there on peer reviewed paper which clearly confirms this?

But ignoring that issue the "consensus" IPCC numbers have a worst case scenario which does not frighten me. The headlines and hype around the numbers is very alarming. Please try to keep the actual scale of the "catastrophy" in mind; a sea level rise twice as big as last centuary, maybe.

I came across this;

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/i ... 1/art00009

It has a value of 5cm sea level rise due to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet by 2100 if current melt rates continue but since it shows a gain of ice in the middle and a melting around the edges there may well be a slowing of melting as the ice around the edges is replaced by tundra. If this happens then the sea level rise by 2100 will be well below the 20cm point.

From one fringe group the media hyped up, but not from the majority of scientists.



HUH?



Based on your "expert" review and opinion? I thnk not.



It also shows a clear acceleration in the later years so the melt rates would not be expected to continue on a linear path. I did not see anything related to the replacement by tundra in the paper. Is that another assumption read into the science? How thick are the glaciers that you believe will so quickly melt away and turn to tundra? Which are they specifically?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I am assuming that the majority of the low altitude melting (below 2000m) would be done by the ice outside the quickly moving glaciers. This will begin to be all melted at some point as the thick stuff is generally in the middle of the island.

The higher terminal point of the glaqciers will, as the paper notes, make some impact on the flow rate so increasing the flow rate out of the central ice sheet.

"In 1970 there were dire warnings of global cooling." I guess you must be older and still not too educated.
I was around then and don't remember any "dire warnings" of rapid global cooling. As a Geology Major I knew about the gradual cooling toward the next ice age in around 2500 years from then. It is too bad that natural path has been changed by AGW to tipping points of natural positive feedback, and eventually AETM, and ELE completion. Sea level rise will be the lesser of concerns in trying to survive after 2050, to the finish of the thermal maximum and species die offs in around a millennium.
The next two ice age cycles will be completely skipped, and evolution will take several million years to achieve the number of species in the biosphere at the beginning of this interglacial ~12K years ago.
Greenland will probably actually become green for a period of time, with whatever plants survive the +30*F heat and whose seeds make it there. Humans will be extinct from ecocide.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Johhny,

No scientist is predicting this. This is your private fantasy.

All others,

Here is a prime example of the need to have a doom scenario to worry about which a lot of people seem to have. Johhny is a highly capable and otherwise seemingly intelegent person. Yet he needs to believe that doom is around the corner. This psychology is also present in the universities of the world. When you read the headlines spend a little time to digest the actual numbers.

The important numbers concearned in this thread are that last centuary the sea ose by 18cm(7 inches) and this centuary might be twice as bad. That the headlines say things about cities being flooded sells news papers.

Or three times as bad, maybe even four times if there is sufficient acceleration, but you misuse the use of averages.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein