-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
jb03 said:
The thing is JB, I have no problem with the articles. They don't refute global warming at all. The problem is Livers miss-use of them to try to justify his 'line of thought'. The fact that he thinks they support his 'line of thought' is part of what demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
jb03 said:
That feeling in your gut is most likely flatulence.
Better stop blaming the cow's for all that methane, it's clearly your fault jim belushi that the world is heating up. ;D
Liverpool said:
Would you like me to explain why those articles don't say anything either way on human-induced global warming Livers? I'll do that, then you can explain what evidence you use to refute the findings of the large majority of the best climate scientists in the world and their 'supercomputers' as you put it, to generate your 'own line of thought'.
To research climate change we need to understand how the natural system works. Those articles present research into how the natural system worked at the close of the last glacial cycle, when there was rapid deglaciation. You can see this event on the graphs presented earlier by Disco, which, as I said earlier, represent climate change triggered by orbital forcing and coupled with various thresholds and positive negative and posiutve feedback effects. Once we understand how the natural system works, if we find departures from it we can look for other causes, such as human induced climate change.
The graphs show that atmospheric CO2 mirrors natural climate change associated with orbital forcing and it's thought that the CO2 release from oceanic reservoirs multiplied the climatic effects of orbital forcing as positive feedback. In other words, CO2 is a crucial control on the temperature of the globe. The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 that started with the burning of fossil fuels in the industrial revolution is a departure from the natural patterns demonstrated by the graphs. In fact this CO2 increase is half as much again as the already high levels normal to an interglacial.
So you see, your 2 precious articles are nothing more than base-level studies that help to understand the natural system so that researchers can create computer models that replcate the natural system, then be used to predict the result of changes to the system, such as ongoing greenhouse gas production. These models predict very considerable climate change as a result of the heightened CO2.
I recognise that although I understand the background, in my current job I haven't got the knowledge and resources to test these models, so I'm quite happy to accept the findings of these researchers. I'm also quite happy to take on-board contradictory evidence presented by scientists who have similar levels of expertise.
You tell us that you with your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, however, have developed your own 'line of thought' that contradicts the majority of researchers. Please explain what evidence you used to formulate this contradictory 'line of thought' of yours, and how it's more valid than the generally held opinion of professionals in the field.
Azza,you seem to grasp this fairly well.Maybe you can speak to one theory I saw on a documentary proposed by a climatologist.
His proposition was something along the lines that if if the oceans warm,we would expect to see more snow over Antartica and thus waters wouldn't rise necessarily.
Are you familar with this theory?I wish I could remember the scientists name who propposed it.
His proposition was something along the lines that if if the oceans warm,we would expect to see more snow over Antartica and thus waters wouldn't rise necessarily.
Are you familar with this theory?I wish I could remember the scientists name who propposed it.
Possibly this evo?
Antarctica and climate change
What would happen if the Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse entirely? First, all the world's oceans would rise by a staggering 57 m - enough to inundate 18 of the 20 most-populated cities on Earth, including New York and London. Moreover, the sudden input of icy cold waters could disturb patterns of global ocean circulation and threaten the uncommonly warm climates that northern Europe experiences today.
Although we are not sure what will happen in the future, we do know that the Earth's sea levels rose by some 18 cm during the 20th century, most of which was due to thermal expansion rather than to any change in mass. In fact, as temperatures rose, more snow fell on Antarctica. The continent therefore acted as a counterbalance to any increase in mass, soaking up the equivalent of about 1 cm of water over the entire century. This is such a small fraction (about 5%) of the water that passes through Antarctica each year that climatologists assumed that the ice sheet is relatively stable to climate change.
But if - as is widely expected - our planet's climate warms faster during this century than the last, then the continent may contribute much more in the future to rising sea levels. Indeed, a handful of large Antarctic glaciers are already rapidly retreating, which could draw down inland ice into the sea even faster, particularly if the world's oceans warm up as expected. In little more than a few decades the ice sheet could then switch from growth to overall decay and, in turn, cause sea levels to rise.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24767
Antarctica and climate change
What would happen if the Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse entirely? First, all the world's oceans would rise by a staggering 57 m - enough to inundate 18 of the 20 most-populated cities on Earth, including New York and London. Moreover, the sudden input of icy cold waters could disturb patterns of global ocean circulation and threaten the uncommonly warm climates that northern Europe experiences today.
Although we are not sure what will happen in the future, we do know that the Earth's sea levels rose by some 18 cm during the 20th century, most of which was due to thermal expansion rather than to any change in mass. In fact, as temperatures rose, more snow fell on Antarctica. The continent therefore acted as a counterbalance to any increase in mass, soaking up the equivalent of about 1 cm of water over the entire century. This is such a small fraction (about 5%) of the water that passes through Antarctica each year that climatologists assumed that the ice sheet is relatively stable to climate change.
But if - as is widely expected - our planet's climate warms faster during this century than the last, then the continent may contribute much more in the future to rising sea levels. Indeed, a handful of large Antarctic glaciers are already rapidly retreating, which could draw down inland ice into the sea even faster, particularly if the world's oceans warm up as expected. In little more than a few decades the ice sheet could then switch from growth to overall decay and, in turn, cause sea levels to rise.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24767
Ice is more voluminous (I think that is a word) than water so IMO that figure of 57 m is cr@p and was simply made up. No one could know the outcome. In the second parapraph the opening sentence even proclaims "we are not sure what will happen in the future."
Lots of use of words like "if" and "could" in that article which gives it little creedance.
(Typical scaremongering from the learned brigade who refuse to accept the "gut feel" theorem.)
Lots of use of words like "if" and "could" in that article which gives it little creedance.
(Typical scaremongering from the learned brigade who refuse to accept the "gut feel" theorem.)
evo said:
I don't know the particular theory Evo (as I said I'm a bit out of it), but I'd say it relates to the ability of warmer, wetter conditions to produce snow through increased evaporation. Where water is colder evaporation is reduced, so there's less atmospheric moisture for precipitation as rainfall or snow. I'd say the researcher was looking at wamer oceans increasing evaporation, leading to higher snowfall. It's one of those feedback things that seems to be the reverse of what's expected. Very interesting. I guess if waming continued, at some point the ability of the ice at the poles to stay frozen would be cancelled, and sea level rise resumed.
An interesting point is that a large componenet of the sea level changes in the past is thought to be the result of thermal expansion and contraction of the water, in addition to the ice/water balance. So the warmer water would be expected to expand and cause a sea level rise that would act against the ice depoists due to increased precipitation to some extent.
Disco08 said:
But it does undermine the science. It is a real problem in science journalism......trying to grab a headline by over-exaggerating the significance of the science.
T. Ryan Gregory had an interesting post on the matter in his blog Genomicron.
