Science Questions

Is climate change really happening?

Mon, 16th May 2016

Listen Now    Download as mp3 from the show Does Telepathy Exist?

Question

David Jones asked:

I have watched a youtube video called The Great Global Warming Swindle, which puts forward convincing evidence that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures. Featured on the programme are Nigel Lawson, Nigel Calder (ex New Scientist Editor), Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace). They actually show graphs that say that over long periods of time, temperatures rise and THEN, 800 years later CO2 levels rise. They also show eveidence that states in the 1940s to 1970s when CO2 levels rose significantly, temps dropped. They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity. How can climate change scientists refute these facts? Please explain. Thanks Hywel Jones

Answer

Dan Jones seperated fact from fiction...Polar Bear

Dan - Whenever I think about climate change I don’t usually start with the temperature trend, like you’re suggesting, I’d start with carbon dioxide. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that was measured in the mid 1800s and any spectroscopy lab in the world can see the wavelength of radiation that carbon dioxide likes to absorb and emit. We know that it absorbs every from the earth’s surface and then emits energy back down to the earth’s surface.

Chris - By energy you mean heat? To make it simple. We’re talking about basically infrared energy aren’t we. Heat?

Dan - Yes, infrared, that’s fine.

Chris - So what you’re saying is the more CO2 that there is because it can absorb more of that energy, there’s more opportunity for that energy to be soaked up?

Dan - If you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you will get more energy down here at the surface, that’s really clear.  We’ve been adding about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year and that accumulates in the ocean, atmosphere, and land and that’s from fossil fuel burning. The short story is that that energy has to go somewhere. If you double carbon dioxide that’s energetically equivalent to putting a 4 watt light bulb on every square metre of the earth’s surface and letting it run 365 days a year, 24/7. 4 watts might not sound like a lot but the earth is gigantic, so if you put one of these light bulbs in every square metre, that ends up being energetically equivalent to about 40 nuclear explosions per second, which is…

Chris - Okay. So the physics argument is that because there’s more of something that can soak up the energy around there should, therefore, be more opportunity to interrupt that energy before it goes off into space and the earth’s system should become warmer,  so that’s what the physics says.  But what people are saying is when you look at graphs and things like that there appears to be some disparity between what the carbon dioxide’s doing, what the temperatures doing, what the current climate measurements and predictions are doing. How do climate scientists like you respond to those sorts of allegations?

Dan - Right. What the gentleman who asked the question was referring to was the surface temperature - just land surface temperature. Well not just land but the surface temperature and that quantity can be affected by how energy is exchanged between the atmosphere, and the ocean, and the cryosphere. So, if that’s the only number you're looking at you will see some wiggles, it will rise, it will fall and some of that is just due to exchanges of energy between the different parts of the climate system. An easier to read thermometer, I might suggest, would be something like ocean heat content.  It takes more energy to raise the temperature of the ocean by 1 degree than it does the atmosphere because you can put a lot more heat into the ocean - it has a higher heat capacity. So, if you look at the ocean heat content for the past several decades, it has been increasing and it looks steadier than the surface temperature, which does have some of these increases and decreases.

Chris - So, is it fair to say that the general trend is an upward one for both the surface temperature and also the sea temperature? That there are fewer wiggles in the sea than there are at the surface, which you would expect because the ocean it takes a lot more energy in the ocean so it’s going to be a lot more stable over time? We would expect to see wiggles in the atmosphere because there are going to be changes and variations year on year anyway, but the general trend is an upward one?

Dan - That right, so I wouldn’t get too caught up in looking at one year or even a couple of years. I’d look at several decades, the past century or so.

Multimedia

Subscribe Free

Related Content

Comments

Make a comment

Have you got the references / copies of the graphs to which you are referring? It would be helpful to see the material that was presented and attempt to establish whether the correct conclusions were being drawn.

As a general rule, temperature follows CO2. Draw-down of CO2 by mountain weathering causes global cooling; rising CO2, from a range of sources, is associated with rising global temperatures consistent with heat trapping. chris, Thu, 4th Feb 2016

The best historic data comes from the Vostok ice cores, which clearly show the 800-year lag (I estimated it at 500 years, but it's a lag, anyway) between the very sharp rises in T and the somewhat slower increases in CO2. The cooling lag is less spectacular but of similar magnitude.

You need a positive feedback mechanism to produce a sharp temperature rise, and the water cycle provides exactly that, whereas CO2 does not. You also need to postulate a mechanism for the subsequent cooling, which again makes sense if H2O is the driver, but not CO2. 

Moving from million-year to annual measurements, the Mauna Loa data shows a cyclic annual fluctuation of CO2 in addition to a slow general trend. The peak CO2 level occurs in summer, whereas peak anthropogenic emission is obviously in winter. The obvious (to me anyway, but I'm only a scientist, not a priest* or a politician**) explanation is that insects and other coldblooded creatures are more active in summer, converting plant material to CO2. Thus temperature controls CO2, not the other way around.

I could mither on about the physics of infrared absorption and reflection, but the subject was clearly beyond the comprehension of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who admitted in their first report that water was obviously the overwhelming greenhouse gas but as they couldn't model its very complex physics, they would ignore it. Probably the most important footnote in history.


*priest - someone who makes a living by telling you it's all your fault
**politician - someone who makes a living by taxing you


PS apropos mountain weathering, where did all that chalk come from? Once upon a time there must have been a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and far from disaster, it produced the South Downs, Dover, East Anglia.... alancalverd, Fri, 5th Feb 2016



The annual fluctuation is easily explained by natural phenomena. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a very small component of the overall CO2 cycle (but by no means negligible).

Deciduous forests are the cause of the annual cycle. There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months. Then the leaves fall during autumn and decompose, releasing much of the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

As far as OP's question goes--it would be false to say that there is no link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. There are many links, including the greenhouse effect, whereby CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-radiates back to the surface, as well as the solubility of CO2 in water (oceans) which is related to temperature.

The key here is that it is a very complex relationship. I am a chemist, not a climatologist, so I will stop my analysis there. chiralSPO, Fri, 5th Feb 2016



So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite? alancalverd, Fri, 5th Feb 2016



So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?



It does not say the opposite. See the attached image, which shows the greatest decline (rate) in CO2 concentration during the July and August, and the greatest increase (rate) during December and January. chiralSPO, Fri, 5th Feb 2016

You need to remove the underlying upward trend to see the seasonal cycle more clearly.

The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved? Or are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly? alancalverd, Sun, 7th Feb 2016



I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.

3% true.

There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though. Tim the Plumber, Sat, 27th Feb 2016


They might actually be right about long term changes and those time periods, but they are conveniently overlooking one simple fact: We've applied combustion to tens or hundreds of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in just 150 years to power the Industrial Revolution, so "long periods of time" and "800 years" don't apply to current changes. This sort of environmental change is unprecedented. It produces both heat AND carbon dioxide. Even the rise of the first photosynthetic organisms didn't change the atmosphere this fast. In fact, the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content and temperature move in lockstep, and have for at least 800,000 years.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

That's enough to refute the skeptics' arguments. If the range from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million was part of the natural range of carbon dioxide, we wouldn't be seeing levels this high for the first time in 800,000 years. There would be other readings like that. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 5th Mar 2016


The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 5th Mar 2016


Interesting, I have never really thought about it that way. I'd like to take a stab at guessing the cause. Temperature of the ocean. I don't like watering my house plants with tap water because of the chlorine and chemicals, but I'm too cheap to buy them bottled water. My alternative is to run hot water into a vessel, then leave it sitting around for a while until it's cool. The high temperature makes the chlorine and gases evaporate faster, leaving you with something closer to natural water. It even tastes better. Similarly, I would assume that when the ocean is cooler, it is better at absorbing carbon dioxide, less efficient when it is warm.

One more guess: It might have something to do with the distribution of agriculture and population. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of agriculture takes place in the Northern hemisphere. Circulation in the two hemispheres is somewhat independent. The equator is not a "hard" atmospheric boundary, but it is a boundary nonetheless. Coupled with uneven distribution of both land masses and water surface in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, that could explain a lot. Remember, the ozone hole was something that recurred on a yearly basis, but only at the South pole, and there aren't any people or hair spray in Antarctica.

One more guess, and this is a pretty wild one: Some human populations still rely on inefficient sources of heat when it is cold, like burning wood. So, depending on what population in which hemisphere is experiencing winter, you might have a higher or lower percentage of people releasing more or less carbon dioxide per capita, and natural absorption processes then either start to catch up or fall behind. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 5th Mar 2016



Exactly my point. Mauna Loa is in the northern hemisphere, so we'd expect the greatest concentration of anthropogenic CO2 to be in the northern winter. But the maximum is in the warmest, not the coldest months. So it's pretty clear that temperature is driving some nonhuman source of CO2 that is more significant than the anthropogenic one.
alancalverd, Sat, 5th Mar 2016


There's going to be a lag relative to the growing season; the material that grows in the peak growing season is going to take a while to break down, and will still be breakng down while new growth is happening.

For example leaves fall off the trees and goes into the soil and then a lot of it gets oxidised by bacteria; it's going to take months and months. wolfekeeper, Sun, 6th Mar 2016



Farmers aren't looking to maximize total accumulated biomass, they are looking to maximize edibility of their crop. Therefore, I think farmers harvest whenever the fruits (or veggies) are ready. Peaches in the summertime, apples in the fall... For annuals like corn, it makes sense to me that the best yield would be found at the time of year when growth is fastest--why sit around waiting for every last drop of sunshine when the bugs won't?

But let's not get distracted by a non-issue.

Yes, there are multiple mechanisms that are crucial to the carbon cycle, and anthropogenic emissions are one of the least significant in terms of magnitude (the rates of change in CO2 concentration within the annual cycle totally dwarfs the overall slope of the multi-year trend-line). But if we look at cumulative contributions over years, suddenly the slow and steady anthropogenic emissions start to have more of an effect than the nearly perfectly balanced ebb and flow of the dynamic equilibrium that was established millennia before the first coal mine opened, and has remained mostly stable until we perturbed it.

Obviously there are also long-term variations in global climate, and the composition of the atmosphere has changed dramatically many times over the last 4 billion years. But, as I understand it, each time there was a rapid change in the composition, there was an associated mass-extinction. For instance, the "oxygen holocaust" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event, which was precipitated by photosynthetic organisms converting CO2 into O2 and biomass. Oxygen was quite toxic to most life at the time, but the major issue (as I understand it) was that the global temperature dropped precipitously because of the sudden decrease in atmospheric CO2 and CH4. You might be able to imagine why some of us view the exact opposite process with some trepidation... chiralSPO, Sun, 6th Mar 2016

Here, on the other hand, is a recent finding that may explain a lot:

http://goo.gl/93BWOD

shows that melting of Antarctic ice releases huge quantities of CO2. There's no reason why this shouldn't also apply to seasonal melting of Arctic ice, so once again we would expect to find a positive correlation between temperature and CO2, but with temperature being the driver.

This is fortunate as it brings chemistry, geology and climatology into line with the known physics of water and carbon dioxide.

Fixed a hyperlink - mod alancalverd, Sun, 6th Mar 2016

For a somewhat humorous take on the debate, listen to the Infinite Monkey Cage, with Brian Cox (30 minutes).

They discuss the impact that the somewhat erratic El Nino Southern Oscillation has on global temperatures.

One of their panel points out that CO2 levels are the highest that they have been in recent human history (mostly due to burning fossil fuels). Also, 14 of the hottest 15 years in human history have occurred since the year 2000. They suggest that this is not a coincidence, but there is a causal link. evan_au, Sun, 6th Mar 2016

Usual response here:

1. Please define global mean temperature and explain how it has been measured throughout human history, or state what parameter has actually been used.

2. Explain the seasonal variation in Mauna Loa CO2 concentration if anthropgenic CO2 is a signficant contributor.

3. Remember that a causal relationship demands (a) a lag between cause and effect and (b) a concomitant reduction in effect with a simiilar lag  characteristic when the cause is reduced.

4. Never mind human history, ice core data suggests CO2 lags 100 - 500 years behind temperature so it can't be a driver.

All of which suggests that the most honest explanation of the status quo, based purely on evidence, is coincidence, not causality. alancalverd, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


Not quoting any sources here, just regurgitating a bunch of stuff I already know, so I'm not posting any links. There are a lot of feedback loops driving this phenomenon. One good example is the melting of permafrost. The more CO2 we release, the hotter it gets, permafrost melts and glaciers recede, exposing dead and decomposing matter, which releases CO2. If it gets hot enough to wither and destroy trees (I saw this happen to a lot of oak trees in Texas several years back), they release CO2, or they start to get eaten by termites, which releases CO2, etc. A hotter ocean is less likely to absorb CO2. Then you have things like the albedo effect, so the less ice there is to reflect heat back into space, the more stays here to make it hot, releasing even more CO2.

I am also aware that CO2 emissions can come from volcanic activity. I have read online many times before that the amount of CO2 added by all the world's volcanoes is smaller than our economic contributions, but having said that, I am a firm believer that shifting the mass of thousands of cubic miles of melting ice from land masses to the ocean can change the pressure on tectonic plates enough to trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. Perhaps this could be adding some CO2 as well, but in that case, I'm more worried about FUTURE contributions than present ones. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


After 800,000 years of not rising above about 320 parts per million, in the 150 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 content has risen above 400 ppm, a full 20% higher than it was in any of those ice core samples.

I've said this a bazillion times before, and I almost always get somebody who want to argue about it, but the simple fact is, when you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, that produces a lot of HEAT, not just CO2 to trap the heat. That's the source of your "temperature driven CO2 release." Nothing in the history of the planet has ever led to the mass/energy conversion of 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years. This is clearly causality, not coincidence.

The "lag" you spoke of means nothing here. The exponential growth rate of our population and resource consumption has overwhelmed the natural balance mechanisms and normal lag times. The Earth has a fever, and we are the organism causing it. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 6th Mar 2016

Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.


Given your huge level of arrogance you can then tell us lower life forms what exactly the world's climate sensitivity to CO2 is?

I would appreaciate a number which is more precise that the IPCC's range of a factor of 5 or so. Tim the Plumber, Sun, 6th Mar 2016



The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass. Tim the Plumber, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


Is that what's turning your letters blue?

You clearly don't want to listen to sense and have a strong tendency toward confirmation biases, but let me explain this for you anyway. The Antarctic is MELTING. Guess what? Water doesn't take salt with it when it evaporates. That snow and ice on Antartica is FRESH water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and freezes faster. So, you get seasonal, temporary ice shelf when melted fresh water freezes for a while just off the Antarctic coast. This new ice will eventually melt and mix with the ocean. It is NOT permanent ice pack. It is a fleeting skin of frozen fresh water, not proof Antarctica is growing in ice mass. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


It's not arrogance. It's indignation, because arrogant people like you think they know more than scientists. After 25+ years of arguing with people like you, I've had it up to here. I've got news for you, pal. When they say 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, that's not just liberal scientists. That is the INTERNATIONAL panel on climate change. That means scientists in countries like China and Russia are included, not just socialist European countries and liberal Democracies. Scientists and all over the world agree.

This isn't about politics. It's about reality. When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you are going to get some extra heat and carbon dioxide from it. In the simplest terms possible, burning stuff produces heat and smoke, burning a trillion tons of stuff produces a LOT of heat and smoke, end of story. Now, if you're not smart or educated enough to understand that simple fact, then you're never going to be able to politically un-brainwash yourself, so I suggest you leave this science forum immediately and go unclog some toilets.
Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 6th Mar 2016



So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?

To the best of my knowledge, they picked Mauna Loa specifically because it was way out in the middle of the ocean, far away from things like large deciduous forests and dense urban metropolises, and I also notice that it's not that far from the "intertropical convergence zone." As such, it's one of the best locations on the globe to get a sense of an "average" reading of CO2 content of the atmosphere, as air arriving in Hawaii has been thoroughly mixed by air currents by the time it gets there. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


So, if that's true, we know what sunspot activity has been like for the last 800,000 years.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

Just trace either one of those two graphs, and you have a plot of sunspot activity all the way back to Neanderthals.

By the way, I'm totally being sarcastic right now. Just thought I should qualify my statement, based on previous experience. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


On my planet, or at least the northern hemisphere of it, most crop is harvested in the third quarter of the solar year. Some soft fruit ripens earlier and it's a good idea to eat it before the birds do, but apples, wheat, barley, corn, rice, potatoes, grapes, olives, and indeed pretty much everything we eat, is harvested from mid-August to mid-October, by which time the plants have slowed or stopped growing. And Seville oranges are harvested from December, when the trees are completely dormant. alancalverd, Sun, 6th Mar 2016



Absolutely. So it's a good measure of the average concentration of everything, except that there's very little exchange of gases across the equator and at 19.5 deg north their measuirements are dominated by the northern hemisphere climate.
alancalverd, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


No.

That CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant when it grew, and is released back there when the material breaks down, so (with some subtle caveats relating to boundary conditions) there's no net effect. wolfekeeper, Sun, 6th Mar 2016


No.

That CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant when it grew, and is released back there when the material breaks down, so (with some subtle caveats relating to boundary conditions) there's no net effect.

Correct, except I wasn't talking about a "net" effect. I was talking about the seasonal fluctuations mentioned by another poster. He suggested it's counterintuitive how CO2 goes up and down in relation to crop harvests, so I suggested this as an explanation. We grow crops, CO2 comes out of the atmosphere. We harvest the crops, CO2 goes back in. I never said anything about a net effect.

Edit: Here's the quote I was responding to from alancalverd:

"The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved?" Craig W. Thomson, Mon, 7th Mar 2016

Analysis of past co² release following a global thaw most likely is a consequence of carbon fossils frozen, then decomposing after a severe freeze. Takes a while for carbon absorbing life forms to get a foot hold on carbon released from carbon trapped in long term permafrost.

But you have to understand way back then, there weren't ppl cutting down forests upon forests, which capture carbon, nor were there ppl burning billions of fossils every day either...

We don't know the "exact" balance necessary to maintain climate we prefer, ocean temperatures (IMO) are the leading indicator of change that will affect our ability to enjoy the climate we currently experience. 

The faster water evaporates from those bodies of water, the more extreme it will rain back down.  Rising oceans also means there is more surface area from which water will evaporate into the atmosphere.  In the near term the most pronounced effect of a changing climate is going to be in an increase of rainy weather.

Past analysis has some utility, but because human activity didn't exist in previous episodes of freezing and thawing of Earth, such comparison are like comparing apples to ozarks. JoeBrown, Mon, 7th Mar 2016


The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.


If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to  do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.

The greenhouse analogy may not be an accurate visualization, since it implies transparent windows which trap the heat inside the greenhouse. This models CO2 as a one way IR valve. A better analogy may a greenhouse with windows that are covered in semi-opaque white plastic, which allows some light transmission but reflects heat in both directions. This type of greenhouse house never gets as hot as expected, since it traps less input heat than transparent windows. All the models predict 100-1200% more temperature rise than observed, which could be explained by the white plastic on the windows.

Water is the main thermal regulator of the earth. Below is the absorption spectrum of water: Water will absorb any X-rays from the sun. Water gets more transparent from UV into the visible spectrum, then it  begins to absorb heavily in the IR and microwave regions.

puppypower, Tue, 8th Mar 2016



CO² in the atmosphere is in the form of gas.  Most of the radiation from the sun (is not IR) becomes heat energy at the surface. Mostly by oceans (Earth surface is 71% ocean).

Much of this heat radiates back into space, through the cycle of weather (our climate).  Energy traveling at the speed of light doesn't like to stop in gases of the atmosphere. Some is absorbed and reflected there, but only a small fraction.

Because the composition of the atmosphere changes, its insulating capacity also changes.

We must appreciate this cycle, because it provides a nice climate for life.  The balance has changed, it is changing and will probably always be in a state of flux.  Human activity is increasing CO² in the atmosphere.  I suppose you can deny that fact every time you start your car or flip a light switch or charge your phone...  The FACT of the matter is: The bulk of human activity produces more CO² than its reclaimed by natural (or engineered) forces. 

This effects the balance (of the climate) on the planet, we call home. JoeBrown, Tue, 8th Mar 2016


1) That's not how the so-called Greenhouse Effect works. A lot of the Sun's energy that would "bounce" off the Earth and back into space is what gets trapped.

2) Analogies are never perfect. That's what makes them analagies. You can't learn anything comparing a greenhouse to another greenhouse. They are both greenhouses, so of course they are the same. The atmosphere is "like" a greenhouse though it is not actually a greenhouse. It's still a useful comparison.

3) No, water is not the main thermal regulator of earth. Water is a wild card thermal regulator. Oceans absorb heat. However, frozen water, or ice, reflects the sun's light (albedo), causing a net cooling effect. Water molecules can act as a greenhouse gas, but on the other hand, clouds are white and produce shadows, so cloud cover can have a cooling effect. Melted fresh water running of Antarctica freezes faster than salt water, so temporary ice sheets form around Antarctica. The amount of water in the atmosphere can vary greatly; the other gases in the atmosphere regulate the climate, which would be unstable and irregular if water was the main thermal regulator. Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 8th Mar 2016

Sorry, Craig, but not even the IPCC can repeal the laws of physics. Water is the only significant greenhouse gas in the gas phase (see puppypower's graph) as it has umpteen different IR absorption bands due to the bent shape of the molecule and its abilioty to form dimers, trimers and all sorts of short-range associations even in the gas phase. H2O gas can account for about 10% of the mass of air.

CO2, being a rigid linear molecule of negligible concentration, is a trivial contributor to the greenhouse effect - as can be seen from the surface temperature of Mars.

The problem with water is that its concentration is variable and it exists in all three states (solid, liquid and gas) in the atmosphere, with so much energy involved in the phase transitions that it causes thunderstorms, hurricanes, and pretty much every atmospheric phenomenon you can think of that involves the transfer of energy below the tropopause, including heating and cooling the surface of the planet. Plus, as you mention, vast and largely unpredictable changes in albedo at all levels - just compare a cloudy night with a cloudfree one to see how much influence it has on infrared emission. 

Now the nice thing about CO2 is that it can be measured and only exists in one phase, so it's fun for pseudoscientists to play with, whilst the entire herd of elephants called H2O tramples through the sky causing weather, climate, and everything in between.

The one honest statement made by the IPCC was a footnote in their first report, admitting that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of water, so they were going to ignore it.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but all the science shows that temperature is the cause (thermostat) and CO2 is the effect (thermometer).  At least that was he case until recently when, during a coincidental warming period, homo sapiens started adding a bit more CO2 to the atmosphere and thus distorted the data.

But annoyingly for governments (who profit from "green" nonscience) the Mauna Loa data does not lie.

alancalverd, Tue, 8th Mar 2016

I wont attempt to engage in an argument that I really don't understand anything about, but from a sort of Bayesian standpoint, why do you guys disagree with the world wide consensus on climate change - what is it that most climate scientists have gotten wrong and why? Or am I wrong in thinking there is a consensus that human activity and emissions is affecting climate? cheryl j, Wed, 9th Mar 2016

Cheryl, I think it has to do with human nature.  More specifically the addict's mentality.  A lot of ppl get stuck in the state of denial.  There's no reason to admit a problem, nor find a resolution if you don't have a problem.

Humans have become addicted to burning fuels, over the past few hundred years. Determining how long we can survive denial is a hot topic, even if the act of denial is ignored.

80 degrees Fahrenheit in Washington DC this early in March is going to give some "important" ppl pause.  Senator Jim Inhofe would probably eat his snowball, if it hadn't melted this early in the year. JoeBrown, Wed, 9th Mar 2016



The image below shows the absorption spectrum of liquid water. The two peaks shown are connected to high and low density water, which both exist in liquid water. These differ by the nature of the hydrogen bonding in water clusters. Low density water (LDW) tends to form a more expanded hydrogen bonding network, while high density water (HDW) tends to form a more contracted hydrogen bonding network. Both exist in liquid water with the LDW due to more partial covalent character in the hydrogen bonds, while the HDW due to a more polar character in the hydrogen bonds.



The organics of the living state can induce both high and low density water based on surfaces. 

When CO2 dissolves in water, it forms weak hydrogen bonds with water. This bonding should form easier in HDW since this water has higher activity due to polar hydrogen bonds. HDW defines higher enthalpy and entropy and is more consistent with the transient nature of CO2 hydrogen bonding to water.



Trees tend to give a cool feel to the earth, instead of making the earth warmer. In the top graph, this suggests the surfaces of leaves tend to induce LDW which absorbs less in the IR. The LDW is also less conducive to CO2 forming hydrogen bonds in water. This destabilizing of CO2 hydration in water is useful because the CO2 is released from the water cage for easier photosynthesis and  entry into the air.

As the plants slow photosynthesis in the fall, plant surfaces change, which will change the LDW/HDW equilibrium at the surface more in line with the higher ratio of HDW in pure water. This allows CO2 to form hydration cages causing the water of life to pick uo more CO2; for next year.

puppypower, Wed, 9th Mar 2016


False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.

False. Humans haven't contributed "a bit more" CO2 to the atmosphere. In about 50 years, CO2 levels have risen a full 20%, to 20% higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years that we know of.

There's a huge hole in your "coincidental warming period" idea. The Earth has been covered with oceans for hundreds of millions of years. There have always been clouds and rain to dissipate unevenly distributed warming in that atmosphere. That NEVER caused CO2 levels to rise above 320 ppm. Current CO2 levels and temperature rises are anthropogenic in nature. It's related to the fact that we've applied combustion to about 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in only 150 years, not a coincidence. Craig W. Thomson, Wed, 9th Mar 2016


The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibar. On Earth it is about 0.4 millibar. Correcting for the lower gravity of Mars means that the Martian atmosphere contains 37.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit area as ours. Being twice as far from the sun means that it receives one quarter of the solar power input, so if CO2 is the principal determinant of surface termperature it should be hotter then Earth, not colder.

Anyway I've just found a really good reference http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ which is either a pack of lies or clear evidence that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. And if you look back at the Vostok data  you will find a few places where the temperature was higher than the present day, but the CO2 level was lower. alancalverd, Wed, 9th Mar 2016



(a) the physics of CO2-driven warming is nonsense

(b) ice core data (the only reliable historic record) shows that temperature fluctuations precede changes in the CO2 level

(c) there is no room for consensus in science: phlogiston, caloric, aether, geocentricity, and the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight are all matters of historic expert consensus, along with the 20th century statements of the US Academy of Science ("there is no conceivable military use for the airplane") and the British Academy ("five computers will suffice for the UK's needs"). Scientific progress is made by mavericks, not followers

(d) Geologically, we know for instance that East Anglia was a tropical swamp ldess than 500,000 years ago and probably supported hippos, rhinos and elephants at the same time as humans. The appearance of chimneys in European buildings was sudden, around 1200 AD. However you look at it, the climate, at least in the inhabited parts of the world, was a lot hotter before we started burning fossil fuel, even within recorded history.

But why the consensus? Because it pays the rent. You can't tax a non-problem, and most climate scaremongers are paid from tax revenues.
alancalverd, Wed, 9th Mar 2016



It's ironic that anyone would fuss about the amount of money spent on climate concerns.

Government spends about 5.3 trillion annualy on fossil fuel incentives.  100 billion on climate concerns amounts to less than 2% of that expenditure.  Climate studies and co² reduction don't pollute like fossil fuels.  So even if the "climate change" was a hoax, it pails in comparison to the alternative.

CO² increases change the ph balance in the oceans.  I kinda like sea food.  But when I see toxic runoff working its way into the ocean everywhere near me, I'm afraid to eat anything I might catch.  How about you? JoeBrown, Wed, 9th Mar 2016

Different problem. Toxic runoff consists of all sorts of stuff from artificial fertilisers to natural sewage and a bit of mining waste (in those countries where there is still a mining industry). Carbon dioxide is a gas, not a liquid, under ambient conditions.

And don't be too critical of raw sewage! Shellfish and several bony fish (particularly mullet - delicious!) like to hang around sewage outlets. The problem there is that human pathogens in poo are much more dangerous to your health than a bit of sulfuric acid from a mine, and fish will avoid most inorganic toxins.

Government expenditure on "climate concerns" (mostly, it seems, on ridiculous transport and security costs for pointless conferences) is not the point. By claiming some green credential, governments can impose massive taxes on fossil fuel, so the global warming swindle is perpetuated because a direct tax on food, health and all the other things that use fossil fuel, would be considered immoral. Some of the tax revenue filters back to the scaremongering industry: a very efficient use of your money to extract more. alancalverd, Thu, 10th Mar 2016

Hydrogen bonding, within water, has both polar and covalent bonding characteristics. The polar aspect of hydrogen bonding is based on charge attraction, with this type of hydrogen bonding trying to get as close as possible to lower the charge potential. The covalent aspect of hydrogen bonding is different.

A covalent bond is less about charge difference and more about the overlap of covalent bonding orbitals; wave functions. In the case of water, the covalent bonding aspect of hydrogen bonding, needs to expand to allow proper orbital and wave function overlap. This is why ice expands when it freezes. Water is sort of unique in terms of expanding when freezing, with Antimony the only other natural substance to do this. The binary of hydrogen bonding adds a wild card to water, with water showing over 70 anomalies with respect to normal materials.

These two possible bonding states of a hydrogen bond, impacts the physical properties of the local water. The polar aspect defines higher enthalpy (internal energy), higher entropy and less volume (contracts), while the covalent aspect defines lower enthalpy (internal energy), lower entropy and more volume (expands). This binary in the hydrogen bonding impacts the absorption spectrum which is shown above.

In the diagram below, a is polar and b is covalent, with the two states stable and separated by a small activation energy hill. The hydrogen bonds in water is a binary switch that can switch back and forth with only a slight energy change. The hydrogen bond never have to break, but adjust physical parameters with only a slight energy tweak.



The containment of CO2 in liquid water benefits by the more reactive polar hydrogen bonding (a), since the polar defines higher activity. CO2 forms only weak hydrogen bonds with water, therefore benefits by more potential in water. Anything that can shift the balance in the binary switch, can also shift how CO2 interacts with water. Life can control the switch or rather the switch has an impact on life.

In my last post, I used the more commonly used terms high density water (HDW) and low density water (LDW) to differentiate the polar and covalent hydrogen bonding. Liquid water does not exist as separate water molecules due to hydrogen bonding. Rather water will form clusters. The dynamic equilibrium between the two states of the binary, can cause clusters to collapse or expand, based on the ratio of polar to covalent bonding. CO2 in water has more room and better access to the hydrogen bonding when the clusters collapse; polar.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/cluster_equilibrium_2.gif

Studies using magnetism and electric fields on water have shown this can shift the binary.



Theoretically, movement in the magnetic field can change the absorption spectrum of local water so pockets of warmer or cooler water can form, due to a change in the binary absorption spectrum. This shift can also impact CO2 by making it easier to harder to be stay absorbed.


puppypower, Thu, 10th Mar 2016


The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibar. On Earth it is about 0.4 millibar. Correcting for the lower gravity of Mars means that the Martian atmosphere contains 37.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit area as ours. Being twice as far from the sun means that it receives one quarter of the solar power input, so if CO2 is the principal determinant of surface termperature it should be hotter then Earth, not colder.

False. You're conveniently forgetting that the atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than ours. If you took everything out of Earth's atmosphere but the carbon dioxide, then added 100 times more carbon dioxide, that would NOT be enough to keep the planet warm. Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 10th Mar 2016


False. I don't know how many times I have to say this. When they say, "97% of climate scientists agree," that means not just liberal Democrat scientists in the U.S. The IPCC is comprised of scientists from all countries including Russia (not a liberal democracy) and China (not a liberal democracy) and countries of all political stripes.

On a more personal note, if you can't figure out the relationship between applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels and a rise in global temperatures, you might as well join the Flat Earth Society.

Furthermore, scientists operate using what we call the "Scientific Method." That method was adopted to get the politics, religion and personal feelings out of science. You're basically calling all these people liars, hundreds of thousands of people, accusing them of ignoring the scientific method, the very foundation of their occupation. Maybe you're projecting your own lack of integrity on others ??

Do you work for an oil company ??

If I ignore facts and make stupid arguments, can I be a Global Moderator too ??

Here's another quick point. You and I can't agree, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in this forum and at physforum.com spends every single day telling everyone else that they are completely wrong about absolutely everything. Think about that. Now, you really expect me to believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists of different ethnicities, nationalities and political beliefs in countries all around the world are able to agree 97% on ANYTHING AT ALL, let alone work together to advance an agenda ???

Give me a break. That alone rules out the idea that climate change is a hoax. Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 10th Mar 2016


You're the one trying to repeal the laws of physics, Alan. Mass/energy conversion does what it does despite your protests. Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis." Apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years, and you're going to get a rise in temperatures when all that stored solar energy is released.

You really need to let go of your confirmation biases and accept facts here. Combustion of fossil fuels produces heat, CO2 and entropy. Actions don't occur without reactions. That's physics. That's reality. Deal with it. Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 10th Mar 2016


You're the one trying to repeal the laws of physics, Alan. Mass/energy conversion does what it does despite your protests. Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis." Apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years, and you're going to get a rise in temperatures when all that stored solar energy is released.

You really need to let go of your confirmation biases and accept facts here. Combustion of fossil fuels produces heat, CO2 and entropy. Actions don't occur without reactions. That's physics. That's reality. Deal with it.


Craig, I agree with you that the greenhouse effect is a real, significant and anthropomorphic force, but I don't think arguments such as these ↑ are very helpful.

A) Please try to be more polite. We are all here for scientific discussion and debate, so when the debate happens it should be done using the same language we use when we discuss. It is so easy for flame wars to erupt from ad hominem attacks because of the online medium (I caution ALL of the participants in this discussion to avoid snarking, even moderators such as myself)


B) Claiming trees convert energy into mass by photosynthesis is at best misleading. The increase in apparent mass of a tree due to the stored chemical energy is insignificant compared to the mass of biomass required to form that biomass. Trees get almost all of their mass from matter inputs such as CO2 and H2O, which they convert into sugars (C6H10O5)n, storing about 17.35 kJ per gram. If a tree has stored 500 kg worth of energy as cellulose, that works out to about 86.7 GJ. Using E = mc2, I calculate that it adds just over 965 micrograms of mass.

C) Similarly, the heat being released by combustion is insignificant compared to the effect of the CO2. We currently use energy at less than 20 TW globally. If we assume that all of it ends up as heat, and compare that to the heat the Earth receives from the sun 176000 TW globally, plus the heat from the decay of radioactive isotopes in the core (about 44 TW, also insignificant), then anthropogenic combustion adds about 0.01% to the energy coming in. And since radiative loss scales with T4, and ambient surface temperatures are typically between 250 and 350 K, this additive increase in energy flux will have no significant force on the temperature.

However, increasing the insulation of the atmosphere by increasing the retention of IR radiation can decrease the rate of radiative cooling by several % for a given T, so increases of several degrees can be produced.

D) I will agree with you as far as the money goes. Alan, I can't think of anyone making money from scaremongering, at least nothing close to the money that is generated for fossil fuel producers. If we want to think that this discussion is biased due to monetary concerns I don't think that it is is side asking for regulations is the place to look... Governments and/or industries need money to perform services. Just as you pay to have your sewage treated or your garbage hauled off, you need to pay to mitigate the harms cause by using fossil fuels.

I am libertarian in many ways, but I think that taxes or fines on negative externalities (harming commonly owned resources, like the atmosphere) make perfect sense to combat "Tragedies of the Commons." A "carbon tax" makes a lot of sense to me. chiralSPO, Thu, 10th Mar 2016


A) Sorry. I've grown increasingly frustrated and impatient over the years. I just turned 47. In 1988, I read Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World" for the first time. I became an avid environmentalist. I studied science specifically to understand this issue better. I have watched the predictions in his book come true, everything falling like a line of dominoes. This is not the time for politeness. It is time for Flat Earth climate change skeptics to wake up and smell the coffee, whether or not they prefer instant or fresh ground.

B) I'm not trying to be misleading. I'm trying to strip down the process to its bare essentials. People get too caught up in side arguments, like how much carbon dioxide is too much, how many snowballs there are in Washington D.C., etc. You can believe me, or you can not believe me, but I will tell you in no uncertain terms, I understand this issue in great detail. I know a lot about the minutiae, like that fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water, so no, Antartica is not "expanding," it's still melting, that's just a temporary freshwater ice shelf pointing to a larger problem. The minutiae are what give people things to argue about. The minutiae are the trees, I want people to see the forest. The simplest explanation and best generalization of climate change that even a layman can understand is that solar energy is stored in plants by photosynthesis, and when you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of stored solar energy in the form of fossil fuels, that produces a lot of heat, plus a lot of extra carbon dioxide that helps prevent some of that extra heat from escaping into space. In the simplest scientific terms possible, photosynthesis is a process whereby energy from the sun is stored in molecules, and combustion releases that energy. The mass/energy conversion is going the opposite direction in both cases. In photosynthesis, the photon's energy becomes "binding energy," which is what holds those high energy fuel molecules together, and yes, when a photon is absorbed by an atom in a molecule, the atom and molecule containing it increase in mass by the tiniest fraction. Energy is literally converted to mass in that case. When combustion releases the energy in a fossil fuel, the opposite reaction occurs. The photons are released, and the molecules they held together break apart, again, as per mass/energy conversion, but in the other direction. I'm not trying to be misleading. I'm trying to simplify things rather than get bogged down in arguments about trees when the forest is what's most important.

C) All I can really say about that is that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has not risen above 320 ppm for at least 800,000 years, according to this chart:

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

In about 50 years, the blink of an eye on a geological time scale, carbon dioxide has risen to about 400 ppm, about 20% higher than it has been in 800,000 years. Changes like that are what I would consider "unprecedented," and even when the CO2 fluctuates by 20%, that is supposed to take thousands or tens of thousands of years, not 50. Now, considering how temperatures move in lockstep with carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in that chart, is it any surprise that the "hottest year on record" has become a recurring news story lately?

D) I agree with you about all this. I would like to add a point addressed to alancalverd. Apparently, he has either forgotten about or is not aware of the fact that the biggest oil producers in the US receive tens of billions of tax breaks and subsidies from the government every single year. That whoops the tar out of the amount of grant money scientists get to study climate change. Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 10th Mar 2016


Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-400-ppm-global-record-18965

Here's what the Mauna Loa data look like since recordkeeping began:

http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mlo_full_record.png

As you can see, the earth basically takes one "breath" per year. The forests act as a sort of lungs for the planet. During the growing season, forests inhale, then exhale in the winter. So, carbon dioxide content goes up and down a little bit each year, giving a peak and a trough of a few parts per million. The problem is, the overall curve is on an upswing. What you are correctly reporting as "we reached 400 ppm" this February is actually just the beginning of another peak that will actually take us PAST the 400 ppm mark.

If the exponential curve indicated by the graph of that information continues unchecked, in a few years, CO2 won't drop below the 400 ppm mark at all. Here's a closeup of the end of that chart to include more recent information broken down by month:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 10th Mar 2016

Nobody is denying the CO2 is going up. However, the expected temperature increase is being over estimated by all the computers models. There is something wrong with their assumptions since the actual temperature rise is 100-1200% lower than the models are predicting.

If all models are too high by 100-1200% either we have over estimated the impact of CO2 on global temperature, or we have ignored moderating variables, such as water.

A warmer earth means more water in the atmosphere, since the amount of water that can dissolve in the air goes ups with temperature. More water in the air; clouds, means more reflection of solar energy back into space. If we ignore the water, we under estimate the reflection of solar heat. Water is the great moderator.

Relative to water and hydrogen bonding, which should be looked into more, kosmotropes and chaotropes are materials dissolved in water, which cause order or disorder, respectively, in water. For example, sodium cations are kosmotropic while potassium cations are chaotropic. Cells preferred concentrate the sodium outside inducing more ordered water outside, while concentrating potassium inside to induce more disorder in the water, inside the cell. This is needed to make it easier for enzymes. Enzymes tend to induce low density water on their surfaces. The potassium helps to disrupt the water caging. 

Kosmotropes and chaotropes ions can shift the high and low density equilibrium of the water and therefore the absorption spectrum. In the table below, the green chaotropic ions are attracted to low density water, while the red kosmotropic ions avoid low density water. If we shift the ionic balance, you can shift the hydrogen bonding binary of water.


puppypower, Thu, 10th Mar 2016



DOH,

Didn't realize my search returned an article from a year ago.  I heard in the news that February 2016 was the warmest month on record.  Following, January's record breaking and a few months late last year....

Saw the correlation I sought, instead of paying attention to the date on the article in question I leaped to insert my foot, anatomically inappropriately ;)

The string of record breaking warm months correlating to an persistently increasing CO² content, makes it hard to not want to SHOUT at the deniers.

Tried to delete my post before it was forever enshrined in Cyberspace, alas, I was too slow ;)  Fortunate or not the correlation still stands  JoeBrown, Thu, 10th Mar 2016

Correlation is not proof of causation.

There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.

Temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing. Observed correlation. Now let's test for causation.

If you look at the physics of infrared absorption and actually put in some numbers, it's obvious that CO2 is not the cause. If you don't understand physics you can build a model of past data and predict what will happen next, and as puppypower points out, if that model uses CO2 as the causative input, you consistently get the wrong answer. Or you can look carefully at historic data and note the 500 - 800 year lag between temperature and CO2. Or you can look at recent data and ask why CO2 levels are highest in summer, when humans are burning less fuel of all types.

It beats me why people cling to the wreckage of a dead hypothesis in the hope that by sacrificing virgins or fossil fuels, they will save the world from a disaster. Climate change is inevitable and from a human perspective, probably disastrous if we carry on living on coastal margins and reproducing beyond a sustainable level. We already have a taste of the political shambles caused by a tiny economic migration. When the population of Bangladesh finds the country uninhabitable, we will see a humanitarian disaster way beyond the wildest hopes of biblical prophets, and taxing petrol won't stop it.

It's time to abandon the CO2 religion and do some science. alancalverd, Fri, 11th Mar 2016


I didn't "forget" it. I began with it. You'd be well advised to revise Dalton's Law of partial pressures. alancalverd, Fri, 11th Mar 2016


No. Tress convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree, and use solar energy to do so. Photosynthesis does not involve significant relativistic mass change, any more than the insects eating the tree (converting it back to CO2 and H2O, in order to extract chemical energy). alancalverd, Fri, 11th Mar 2016


But it is primarily intergovernmental, i.e. driven by politics, and only seeks and publishes opinions with which the Panel itself agrees - apart from the footnote statement of incompetence I mentioned earlier. alancalverd, Fri, 11th Mar 2016



Correlation is not causation.  It provides indicators to causation.  Humans are pretty good at figuring that out, one of the reasons we think we rule at the top of the food chain.  Also "science" relies heavily on such principles.

The sun is the predominant cause of global warming.  That's been the case for at least a billion years.  We don't know what exactly has caused past cycles of change.  We may have reasonable and/or educated guesses, but ultimately they're still guesses, because human kind has a very limited recorded history, by way of comparison.  We've analyzed geologic evidence and recognize a pattern in cooling and warming of the Earth which has a correlation to CO² atmospheric content.  Again correlation is not causation. We get that!

However, there's no evidence of a phenomena where fossils burn increases daily, until recent history like the present phenomena.  We know this phenomena has not occurred in prehistoric times (based on geological evidence), so there is little we can correlate it to.  We don't know the ultimate outcome of this behavior, other than it may/will likely influence the climate.  The degree and magnitude are a little sketchy because the Earth is a lively planet.

Some of us have a concern, human activity is persistently increasing the rate of pumping CO² (currently about 5 billion metric tons annually (5 GT)) of CO² into the atmosphere every year.  This is increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO².  Human activity has been increasing the amount YOY for about 200 years. 

We *might* be able to see a correlation and identify the cause.  The projected effect is that the Earth will warm, due to increased atmospheric CO² content, because CO² slows heat from exiting the atmosphere compared to nitrogen (the bulk of our atmosphere nitrogen, then oxygen, argon, water vapor and finally CO²).

The CO² concentration is pretty minuscule, but it's increasing. Seems it only takes tiny amount of increase to make 1 degree difference.  That's not correlation being causation.  It's causation indicating correlation. JoeBrown, Fri, 11th Mar 2016


That's a stupid analogy. Here's a better one.

Pull your car into the garage and leave it running. Now, close the garage door and roll down your windows.

You will notice the temperature and composition of the atmosphere in your garage changing. Now, breathing is most definitely going to be the cause of death.

You had better open the garage door now. That's where my good analogy gets weak. You can open the garage door and let in some fresh air. Our atmosphere does not have a garage door to open. We are stuck with the atmosphere we have, and it's high time we start taking better care of it.

Again, if your position is that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not change the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, you have no business posting in a science forum.

You said, "It's time to abandon the CO2 religion and do some science."

You might as well be telling me that for every action, there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction. Scientists have been studying carbon dioxide molecules for a long time. They know what the properties of a CO2 molecule are, and they know what extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does. Right now, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with thousands of scientists with PhD's that agree with me. Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 11th Mar 2016


FALSE. That's not mass/energy conversion. It is the photon that provides the extra mass. In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass. I didn't say it's a significant amount of mass. Anyone who understands the equation E = mc^2 knows that the speed of light squared and reciprocated means a tiny amount of mass comes from the energy of one photon. I never said it was "significant" relativistic mass. I know better. But it is still mass/energy conversion. Same goes for a termite eating a tree, just reversed. Those complex, high energy molecules enter a digestive system and get broken down. The heat energy of the photons food contains is what keeps your body temperature nice and toasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Mass-energy_relation Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 11th Mar 2016


The ocean is part of the problem. It absorbs CO2, but we're not sure how much. So far, the ocean has been absorbing lots of the extra CO2, but we're not sure how saturated it is getting. Also, the oceans circulate pretty slowly and contain so much water that we're not sure how long it takes to get saturated all the way to the bottom. We've been lucky so far, but if and when the ocean is not able to absorb more CO2, all the rest is going to start staying in the atmosphere and rate of increase will accelerate. That would be a really bad thing. Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 11th Mar 2016



Yes, I remember it well. We studied and calculated the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide as undergraduates. And many years after I got my PhD I noticed that the approved A level text either deliberately lied about it, or was written by people who had no idea what they were on about. The CO2 molecule, everywhere in the universe except in A level texts of the 1990s, is rigidly linear and has very few IR transitions. Which is just as well, otherwise the CO2 lasers that we use to treat patients and weld steel every day, wouldn't work.

It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation".  alancalverd, Fri, 11th Mar 2016



You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV.  alancalverd, Fri, 11th Mar 2016



You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV.

Yeah, I know there's more to it than that. I took a year of Biology for majors my first year in college thinking at the time that would be my major. I fully understand how photosynthesis works, not to mention oxidative phosphorylation, cellular respiration, the citric acid cycle, the proton pump, etc. so maybe your are outclassed on this one. I also know what mass/energy conversion is, and the principle of mass/energy equivalence. I also know about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. So, you can obfuscate the issues and put words in my mouth all day long, but you're not going to change my mind about any of this because I have learned my science correctly.

For example, I never said a photon is turned into a "massive particle" by photosynthesis. I said its energy is converted to a miniscule amount of mass. Completely different statement. If you have a PhD, you ought to be able to recognize that those are two completely different statements.

On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.



Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 11th Mar 2016


That's not a rat you smell. It's a rotting baby you threw out with the bath water.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

It should be as plain as the nose on your face that neither one of these two graphs is "leading" the other one. In fact, they diverge ever so slightly from time to time, with either one of the graphs being slightly ahead at different points in time. That's because there are a lot of other variables. Maybe there were more tectonic plates over polar regions at some points in time, so there was more albedo from ice. Similarly, if tropical forests drift too far from the equator, they could die off or even become deserts. Deserts move into equatorial regions and become forests, but that takes time, so there is a lag. The face of the earth is changing slowly, but constantly.

So, neither one of those graphs is leading the other, or "causing" the other. If anything, they BOTH "cause each other" to a degree. There are multiple FEEDBACK mechanisms that keep those two graphs more or less in lockstep for millions of years at a time. It's not just simple cause and effect. It's a dynamical system that exhibits chaotic behavior within certain paramaters established by those feedback mechanisms.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=134

We have interrupted those feedback mechanisms by applying combustion to 100 million years worth of solar energy that was previously stored safely away in ancient life forms buried in the earth's crust.

You claim you have a PhD. So, why are you arguing about this? You should know how to do math. You should understand big numbers. You should know what an "exponential function" is. I've got news for you. There are about 7,125,000,000 people on the earth right now. At current rates of population growth and resource consumption, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will no longer have a place to stand. Here's a little slice of that exponential growth curve you can actually see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

... which reflects this trend:

https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population&oq=world+pop&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2029j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

... and this one:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.705e080613685f74edb800092/1376383183967/NL78-haberl-fig1.gif

As a certified non-mathematician, I can nevertheless tell you with certainty that those exponents are going to clash with the realities of a finite atmosphere and a finite planet's surface someday. In fact, I say they already are. I'm getting a little tired of arguing with people like you about the most important issue facing the future of our entire species. Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 11th Mar 2016

There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.

But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed. alancalverd, Fri, 11th Mar 2016



6CO2 + 6H2O ↔ C6H12O6 + 6O2

The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 


*admittedly through a complex series of intermediates, depending on the species, but we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle. alancalverd, Sat, 12th Mar 2016


When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 12th Mar 2016


Are you sure you're a physicist? In my estimation as a layman, it's ALL important. To the best of my knowledge, real physicists operate according to the Scientific Method, which does NOT include sweeping the "bits in the middle" under a rug.

To cite a specific example, scientists can emit a photon from a device, and that photon can hit a detector, which marks the "beginning" and "end" of the photon's "life," but it's the "bits in the middle" that concern physicists, where non-locality and wave characteristics emerge as the photon passes though one or two slits. They put all those slits and half-mirrored surfaces in between the emitter and detector specifically to examine the "bits in the middle" between the emission and detection of the photon ...

Also, "simple folk" like Michelson and Morley built an interferometer while everyone else was riding around in covered wagons. They were looking for the unseen "bits in the middle" known as aether ... Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 12th Mar 2016



Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.

TED talks overpopulation Hans Rosling.

Watch the video.

Spreading this evil idea that there is a problem with human population is plain evil. Tim the Plumber, Sat, 12th Mar 2016


When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.


What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda. Tim the Plumber, Sat, 12th Mar 2016


No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita. Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 13th Mar 2016


Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR ANOMALY °C ANOMALY °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.
Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 13th Mar 2016


No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Can you at all justify that with actual numbers? I mean we have used about 2 cubic kilometers of oil. That is a very small number compared to the volume of the earth so any talk about mining down to the core is drivel. Obviously.



Yes, I fully understand the supply and consumption issues of oil. Indeed we have used the very easy stuff. We now have to work for it. In the 17th century coal was dug up out of the fields around Sheffield, then they had to keep going deeper as the easy stuff was used. Coal is now cheaper at the point of consumption than ever. This is due to the cheapness of transport and the size and effiency of all those open cast mines in places like South Africa and Austrailia.

Are you still a believer in peak oil even when the 100% confident predictions of it running out have just been proven to be drivel????? What will it ever take for you to let go of your favorite dooms-day scenario?



And yet the price in real terms keeps getting cheaper. Today we use steel as a very cheap building material, no problem. This is due to our increased ability to get the stuff out of the ground which is due to increased population, increased wealth and better technology which is due to increased population with increased wealth solving problems.


And shortly, this century, we will be mining the asteroids of the solar system and have more resources than we can possibly use in the next thousand years. Door opens... Tim the Plumber, Mon, 14th Mar 2016


Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR ANOMALY °C ANOMALY °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.


I agree that the temperature of the world is higher now than it was in 1979.

Do you deny that there has been no significant warming since 1998?

In light of the lack of warming over the last 18 years how have you modified your expectations of future warming? Can we safely discout the top half of the IPCC's predictions? If so what is ther to worry about?

I do not wish to see no warming. I think it would be a better world for humanity if it was slightly warmer. +2c I think would be nice. Beyond that I do not know and would like to see what +2c would do before I formed my opinion.

You have totally made up your mind. You do not need to consider data. Show this to be wrong by answering my questions. Tim the Plumber, Mon, 14th Mar 2016



So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?



It does not say the opposite. See the attached image, which shows the greatest decline (rate) in CO2 concentration during the July and August, and the greatest increase (rate) during December and January.


Referencing the chart, there are a lot of earthquakes in the first part of the year 2008, less wild fires tho.

Looking at this
Magnitude Ranging Between
          2000  2001  2002  2003 2004  2005  2006      2007 2008  2009    2010

Total   1505    1361 1341 1358 1672 1844 1865 2270 1948 2057 2136

There is a steady increase in activity, how much CO2 is released with earth quakes? Do we have any estimates on that. I'm just taking a breif look but there seems to be a connection.

Found this
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275539054_Positive_correlation_between_CO2_daily_peaks_and_micro-earthquakes_occurrence_in_deep_fault-caves_an_empirical_model

CONCLUSIONS
1. There is a positive  correlation  between  micro-earthquakes  (M<2.5)  and  atmospheric  anomalies  within  the  Benis  fault-cave.  Seismic  events  are 
related  to  sharp  daily  increase  in  atmospheric  CO2(>20 ppm).

2.
The area of influence for this gas mobilisation is up to 60 km and southward of the pit cave.

3.Furthermore,  there  is  an  empirical  relationship between  the  concentration  of  CO2 emission  and 
the  distance  of  the  epicentre,  for  the  geological units of the Betic Range. Littlestone, Mon, 14th Mar 2016


No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand.


Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.



Surely, but actually to a degree so are humans, waste is a bigger issue then anything, and mis-allocation of resourses, if we could be bothered to actually learn how to recycle and reuse everything we have already extracted, while sustaining our population levels, we potencionally would not need to mine at all. 



Yet oil is cheeper then ever and we are all suffering in an ecconomy of deflation. We need to get off oil, but the power industry is not interested in that happening. Still Algie tanks can produce oil and gas, with a good recycling systems we could re-use what we have and produce the difference, with no need for drilling. There are better energy systems comming also, Like Molton Salt ractors that produce no nuclear waste and use almost 100% of there energy value. Research into fungus offers a serious opportunity to allow cleaning and renaturalisation of poluted habitates. 



Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.
Big fishing fleets put all the small guys out of business and over fish. Monsanto helped destroy small local milk farmers, with it's hormone products to produce more milk- a product that allows farmers to gain more milk from its cows, when at the time this was first released there was already too much milk on the market.
Subsidised farming From Europe and America has invaded and destroyed local farming in Africa by under cutting all the local producers: in the same vain of market domination.
Big companies are far more to blame for enviromental and resourse issues we face, the bigger they are the bigger the exturnalities get. Big business is also at the same time getting laws and regulations past that protect them and their market share and as such work to prevent smaller producers entering the marklet place. Seems as tho all companies are seeking the the too big to fail position- it's not free market, it's not capitalist, some kinda werid productionist tyranny. Littlestone, Mon, 14th Mar 2016



Fascinating. Nobody had been to the North Pole, the top of Everest, or measured any temperatures in continental Antarctica in 1880. International thermometry was not usefully standardised until 1920 - indeed nobody was really interested in accurate ground surface temperature measurement unitl the advent of the aeroplane, and I'd be particularly interested to know how your authoritatve source measured the mean surface temperatrure of the Pacific Ocean.

Being a pernickety sort (i.e. a physicist), I always ask people how they defined the parameter they are talking about, and how they measured it. Never had an answer for "global mean temperature" until 1970, and even the satellite data has been "corrected" several times since - remarkably, always towards the predicted value of the climate scaremongers! alancalverd, Mon, 14th Mar 2016



Funny thing bout the poles, they used to keep pretty good record.  Now that the north pole is disappearing, I guess it's  lucky we core it ahead of time.

NASA runs down what how the massaged the numbers to keep 'em in line with projections, should you actually wish to know what the did.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

But since they did it to "keep in line w/predictions" why bother. JoeBrown, Tue, 15th Mar 2016



DOH,

Didn't realize my search returned an article from a year ago.  I heard in the news that February 2016 was the warmest month on record.  Following, January's record breaking and a few months late last year....

Saw the correlation I sought, instead of paying attention to the date on the article in question I leaped to insert my foot, anatomically inappropriately ;)

The string of record breaking warm months correlating to an persistently increasing CO² content, makes it hard to not want to SHOUT at the deniers.

Tried to delete my post before it was forever enshrined in Cyberspace, alas, I was too slow ;)  Fortunate or not the correlation still stands 


One thing that needs to be said, is the record books for real time weather and real time climate change only go back 150 years in some places and 100 years in more places. The earth, on the other hand is billions of years old.

For those who wish to believe, when the experts say this is the hottest year on record many people will assume this means hottest of all time; billions of years not 100 years. Most layman assume science has all the answers, it knows about the long term past, it does not lie or spin, therefore this is the hottest it has ever been. The consensus says so, therefore they did all the research so they need to be right and I don;t have to check.

The hard reality is there are records of climate change and temperature, from the long term past that is stored in ice, soil and rock. People have heard about core samples. The hottest on record, sort of implies the hottest on all the records. This is a deliberate play on words. One has to research the past to fully understand the record they are talking about, is not tiny and not a good representation of all the earth's records. It is too small a period of time. This omission of all the facts, and the presentation of the finite set of facts, as the record, causes many people to infer, wrongly. This is called spin. Spin is why there is a political divide; subjective, in what should objective science.

This political divide follows a political template. It works on the same people, time and again. For example, the hottest on record is like saying the top 1% richest people of the USA are responsible of all the evils of the country. This statement lumps all the data and explains it based on the behavior of a few. It does not use all the records of all the people, but it cheery picks one set of records to define the whole. Does this schema sound familiar? All whites, males, straights are racists, sexist and homophobes therefore they need to be punished. You point to a few data records and generalized this to means all the data and records.

A reasonable person will not deny there are some evil rich; narrow data record says warmest. But the reasonable person also knows there are very generous rich people, like Bill Gates; longer data record shows exceptions. If I argue against the misleading premise all rich are evil, I would be called a denier, since they can show me a few data of evil rich. I will say, I can show you data of generous rich, but this will be called irresponsible.

The consensus of science is now in the position to squander the most money and resources they ever had; evil rich. Like the liberals have said, there are no good rich in this little world, since they have all been driven away, with no voice and resources. It has become a self for filling prophesy. This is not different from the scoundrels in the racist and sexist industries. puppypower, Tue, 15th Mar 2016

Just to set the record straight, literally

1. Until 1903 (Wright Brothers), accurate land surface temperature was of little interest and records are, to say the least, sparse.

2. Until the UK National Physical Laboratory was established in 1900, there was no international calibration service for thermometers, and the first credible comparison of national standards took place in 1923.

3. The North Pole was not reached until 1909, the South Pole 1911. Temperature measurements above the polar ice caps was, at best, sketchy before 1955.

4. Even in the 20th century, we have very little temperature data in central Africa, South America, anywhere more than 100 miles offshore, and generally above 10,000 ft.

5. Most of the reliable historic temperature data comes from airfields. Until the 1950s, there was an ever-increasing number of grass airfields, with a few low buildings. The number has decreased steadily since then, and few of the old military strips continue to keep records - private club aircraft are less critically loaded than WWII bombers and the radio weather forecasts are very good. The remaining reporting stations are increasingly major airports and permament military stations with huge concrete runways and lots of buildings - unsurprisingly, a lot hotter than the surrounding countryside!

6. Ocean surface temperature and most land surface temperatures were, frankly, unknown until the advent of satellite imaging in the 1970s. Curiously, although it is perfectly possible to calibrate such instruments to within 0.01 degree accuracy before launch, climate "scientists" feel it necessary to publish frequent "corrections"  to historic satellite data, all of which tend, remarkably, to fit the "predictive model" of the day.

7. A dead hippopotamus cannot lie. Finding the bones of several such animals in Cambridgeshire suggests that this part of the world, at least, was a heck of a lot warmer a few thousand years ago. Knife marks on the bones suggest human activity, and I very much doubt that anyone was importing hippo thighs for fun and profit. alancalverd, Tue, 15th Mar 2016

One cannot argue, the history of real time climate change history is  short.

But in prospective so is the industrial revolution.

We don't know what all changed climate in the past, but we know its happened.

Today we'll pump about 26.8 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere.  The average daily has increased just about every day for at past 100 years (365,000 days).  I doubt we hit the 1 million ton mark 100 years ago.  Funny thing about human activity...

You can blame politicians, billionaires, whomever you like, it doesn't matter.  Humans like electricity, music, TV, microwaves, heat, air conditioning, phones, computers and transportation provided by trains, planes and automobiles.

The more we use these, the more CO2 we have produced.  By adding renewable resources we may have reached the peek. Wouldn't that be great?

Some of us have enough brain cells to rub together to make the connection that these increases, so too may come climate changing consequences. JoeBrown, Tue, 15th Mar 2016



That's not my statement. That's something I read in a magazine several years ago. Mathematicians did those calculations, not me. And it doesn't seem that exaggerated. This is the nature of exponential growth. Human population has doubled in about 50 years, keep doubling every 50 years, that leaves you with about 4 trillion people in 500 years. Even if they use less resources in the future, that's still a lot of people.



False. Business doesn't work that way. "Job creators" are largely a myth. When the economy is good, businesses hire. When the economy is bad, they lay people off. What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers. Business responds to their demand by producing supply. People are as much to blame as anyone. Even basics like food are a good example. There is plenty of lettuce out there to make salads, but Americans don't eat salads, they eat cheeseburgers. That's their choice. That's why there's an obesity epidemic. Similarly, I have no biological children. I don't drive a car. I eat low on the food chain. These are all personal decisions anyone can make. People can always NOT consume what they are offered. However, especially in the US, conspicuous consumption is a status symbol, and that's a big part of the problem.

Another part of the problem is education. Kids don't like math and science, it's "too hard," they would rather watch videos and play video games all day, just like they have since I was a kid, and every generation gets a little bit farther from the knowledge that could help them make good decisions about things like obesity and climate change. That's something you could blame on Big Business. They control the curriculum. American kids are basically indoctrinated to become part of the Consumer Class and the present system, but when we try to change the curriculum, conservatives claim we are the ones doing the indoctrination.

Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 15th Mar 2016


I never heard of that, so I looked it up. Wikipedia says those bones are from 120,000 years ago. That's a lot longer than the "few thousand years" you said.Quote: "They eventually discovered 127 bones that came mostly from a hippopotamus, with a few belonging to rhinoceros and elephant," so that's not "several such animals" like you said. Like most skeptics, you are playing loosely with the facts ... again. And it's sort of hard to believe a single hippo, single rhino, and a single elephant would have teamed up to make a trek to Derby across a land bridge. Seems more like they were placed there. Are you sure you're not getting this story mixed up with the movie Ice Age or something?

Maybe you are under the impression that when the planet gets warmer or cooler, that warm or cool gets evenly distributed. Maybe you haven't heard of things like the Atlantic Conveyor. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, which sets the trend for circulation of the Atlantic's waters. A sufficient influx of fresh water could shut it down, meaning as the rest of the planet gets warmer, the British Isles could get cooler. The opposite could in fact happen and probably has. There's more to climate change than just a simple, evenly distributed temperature rise. Due to the geography and physical features of the Earth, the distribution, absorption and dissipation of heat is never going to be even, so yes, you can get anomalies like hippos in places you might not expect, especially given 120,000 years.

You seem pretty desperate to poke holes in climate science. What exactly is your motivation?


Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 15th Mar 2016



The Atlantic convayor is wind driven.

Picture a strip of ocean surface 1m wide from the Carribean to Ireland. Say 6,000km. On each square meter have the wind cause a 1N force along the current's direction. Add that up and you have enough force to support a collum of water 600m high. 1N is the weight of 100g. Imagine holding a 1m square of cloth just above the ocean's surface in the middle of the North ATlantic, where the winds are strongest. I assure you the force would be much more than 100N. Then allow for the big walls of water all over the surface that are the perfect shape to grip the wind.

When ever a depression goes over the area a 10 feet high swell follows along. And say 15km diameter. 1/2 a cubic kilometer twice week or so. Unless there is a bigger storm.

The last quote of Greenland's ice mass loss was of 12.9Gt per year.

The North Atalntic convayor is not going to be affected by a tiny amount of fresh water mixing with the already cold Arctic water and then mixing with the warmer southern waters and decending to the ocean floor. Keep dreaming alarmists. Tim the Plumber, Tue, 15th Mar 2016


FALSE. Like any other example of thermohaline circulation, the Atlantic Conveyor is driven by density gradients arising from uneven surface temperatures ("thermo") and freshwater influx into salt water ("haline").

I would have imagined that, being a plumber, you would AT LEAST know something about how water flows. If you aren't even an expert on that, maybe you shouldn't be commenting about mass/energy conservation, thermodynamics, entropy and climate change. Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 15th Mar 2016


https://books.google.com/books?id=d_arS8LsAtIC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=diminishing+returns+of+technology+rifkin&source=bl&ots=2Y90VmpEWU&sig=riCbydTijX1-7_tC8nywzSx59_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj54NHRkMPLAhVRyWMKHSCnBsIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diminishing%20returns%20of%20technology%20rifkin&f=false

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/02/globalisation.globalrecession Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 15th Mar 2016


The apparent lack of science in climate scaremongering. alancalverd, Tue, 15th Mar 2016

Using the word "scaremongering" is spin, plain and simple. You're biased. You use science to support your arguments, too. You just cherry pick data that support your claims, that's all.

Once upon a time, humans learned how to control fire. One of the first important science lessons we learned is, "Ugh, me burn stuff, me get heat."

Pointing out that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of stored solar energy in just 150 years is likely to make it a bit warmer isn't scaremongering. It's acknowledging reality.

Pointing out that disrupting the climate could cause famines, floods and droughts, leading to economic repercussions isn't scaremongering. It's acknowledging reality.

Again, if you don't believe that burning fossil fuels affects the temperature and composition of a finite atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, leave it running, close the garage door, and roll down your windows.

"Ugh, it getting hot in here ..." Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 15th Mar 2016



That's curious, because you're also opposed to spending on researching the topic based on this remark:



I doubt anyone would argue the climate is not a complex system.  While I find it ironic the costs of conferences would also have climate consequences, it must be reasons that complex problems, require a complex efforts to resolve.

There is a general consensus that unearthing fossilized hydrocarbons CH4, C2H6, C3H8, C4H10, etc., and burning them increases insulation of the atmosphere.

CO2 is the lowest common denominator of the process.  CO2 is not a direct measure of the hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere, but has correlation.  Hydrocarbons have a greater heat insulation quality.

The volume has increased to a substantial quantity, it is affecting the climate.  There is scientific understanding there is an imbalance, introduced by human activity.  It's quite scientific, tho you claim its based on scaremongering???

One would not be at fault, to perceive you, much like the American Republicans, rely upon pure faith to understand the world around you. JoeBrown, Tue, 15th Mar 2016



That's not my statement. That's something I read in a magazine several years ago. Mathematicians did those calculations, not me. And it doesn't seem that exaggerated. This is the nature of exponential growth.


exponential growth of humanity?



Which is speculative, if, if, if. I really do not see that happening,



False.


No it's not false



Nothing to do with job "creators" this was about how business acts and behaves.



Assumptive, business acts, in their best interest related to profits, regardless of the ecconomic situation, they will lay people off in the good times to and also hire in the bad times, relative to interests of Profit- Noam Chomsky as an example has complained, protested, or maybe demonstraighted that the Corporate sturcture is set up with a mandate and that mandate is to get as much profit as is humanly(or inhumanly) possible, the mandate itself sets restictions on, and impluses CEOs and the corporate structure itself to sacrifice everything in the interest of profit- that has not happened by accident, social concerns, enviromental concerns, moral concerns, are all, if on any list anywhere at all, secoundary- to profit.

Corportions are not there to employ they are there to make money, if employing people helps that agenda, they employ.



No false, the market drivers are those who make and maintain a market, primarily. It took 6 attemps to get people to buy premade sandwiches on the 6th attempt after all the investment, advertising, marketing, free tasters, people actually started to buy pre made sandwiches, 5 attempts failed because there was no market, they the sandwich makers, built one.

And covered the sandwiches in plastic, kept them in fridges, and throw them away after a few days because they are off now. It took many years, lots of investment and 6 attempts.

Consumers were not asking for premade sandwiches, business decided that they should ask(want) for them.



NOOO! utterly false it makes the demand, that's why marketing and advertising exist! "Get your new widge and get it while its hot, women will sleep with you if you do"

Newspapers state the same lie- "We right the stories that our audience want to hear" Maybe thats not a lie, when you see it's all stories. "We newspapers have no effect on what people think, we just respond to demand"

"we companies have no influence on what people consume, we just respond to demnand" could there be a bigger lie when most people do not even actually know what it is, they are consuming? "it's says blue berry pie, but theres no blue berries in it? really?"

They market to make believe, no?



People are as much to blame as anyone? although anyone is still a person I assume, well yes people do work for and control business.



Yes and companies spend millions trying to keep them eating them, they even put chemicals in Cheese burgers they know are addictive. They also increase the suger and hype up the taste- can you guess why?



Really, you dont think it's possible to make a chemical free, lower suger, low transfatty acid burger?

Maybe these burger producers are all feeders "I love my customers"



Sure the American way. UMM, a status symbol- thankyou.



Ofcourse they do Politicans are an extencion of corporate power today, Once upon a time apparently politicains used to regluated business to protect "the people" today politicians regulate the people to protect the business.

Important to note: it is a very time consuming process to research and look into the activity of a company, espically considering that companies do all they can to protect their image and the image of their products. To make informed decisions(if its even possible in that climate) about products is therefore by default an exhastive process, add-inf, if you gonna look at everything you buy. To blame consumers for poor choices is really a copout that defends the business community- it's all on the comsumers blame them and lets us the business world carry on: which ofcourse makes sense when you realise that democracy means "business rules" and provides for the dumb masses. The sad thing in all of that is ofcourse that while on the one hand big business can offer solutions to enviromental problems, often their own interests are more interesting, which brings us to the sad part that the planet and all its different forms of life should really be at the mercy of something better; Logically, reasonably and morally, but as for whatever that answer is, it should surely be reasonable and moral with at least a hint of logic in there somewhere.   
Littlestone, Tue, 15th Mar 2016


https://books.google.com/books?id=d_arS8LsAtIC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=diminishing+returns+of+technology+rifkin&source=bl&ots=2Y90VmpEWU&sig=riCbydTijX1-7_tC8nywzSx59_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj54NHRkMPLAhVRyWMKHSCnBsIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diminishing%20returns%20of%20technology%20rifkin&f=false

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/02/globalisation.globalrecession



It's a sad situation but really the only way you can became a accepted member of the intelectual class, is by imbracing the status quo and structure. To say "They are all captured" would'nt really be an under statement.

The deminishing "RETURNS" is that business speak for hard profit? it is isnt it, hard profit and power, and all those other benefits of oligarchy status.

Technologies can be used to liberate they can also be used to enslave and control- I wonder which direction the Elites are choosing?
---------

With regards to the artical, it interlinks completly with the point I made before from Noam Chomsky, if Corporation' put Profit first, you can only arrive at a place where no-one works in the corporation but it has huges profits.

Business in the past, when it was family owned for example, would take pride in the fact that it was employing people, that was part of the reason they were in business, to employ people, to benefit the local ecconomy, and society, to make the world a better place, but older business ideals about contributing to society, have been thrown out and the new ideal is "make as much money as possible".

So they start buyiung up all the other companies, laying off everyone they can, so I supoose in the grand dream there is one giant company, that employs about five people and gives all the profits to it's share holders :D it's a really well thought out dream isnt it.

Oh and it's hedgefund and ther hostile take overs, that have destroyed industry more then anything, they buy it, cut it up and sell off the bits, made huge profits doing so. Littlestone, Tue, 15th Mar 2016



Conferences at which so-called "word leaders" lock down cities for "security" and play brinkmanship games in order to improve their chances of re-election, are not scientific research.

Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.

It is plain to me that farm animals are a major and increasing source of anthropogenic CO2. The green lobby (or at least the worst part of it) insists that animal exhalates are taken up by plants, but vehicle exhausts are not. So we subsidise hill farmers and tax motorists. This is utter drivel, not science.

I still await anyone's definition of global mean temperature, and an explanation of how it has been measured for the past 100 years. If you don't define your parameter, and explain how it is measured, you aren't doing science. No observational research.

Building computer models of an inherently chaotic system, adding fudge factors instead of addressing the inherent nonlinearities in the real system, and massaging such historic data as you have in order to make it fit your naive hypothesis, is not science. 

But the worst offence of all is to faff about building windmills and taxing air passengers instead of facing up to and mitigating the inevitable human disaster of climate change. Unfortunately the modern world is run by religion and politics, not science. alancalverd, Tue, 15th Mar 2016



Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/52.20.gif

Duh.



I disagree. It takes 2,000 calories or so per day to sustain a human life. Everything else is optional. That's a pretty extreme point of view, but it is factual. We don't need pretty much any of the stuff we buy when it comes right down to it. You can always refuse the stuff you are offered. When enough people do that, they offer you something else. Keep buying what they offer, and they'll keep offering you the same thing. You know, people like me are ultimately responsible for the GMO debate. You see, I made the choice to start drinking soy milk about 20 years ago, even though it used to cost a lot more than milk. Thanks to people like me creating demand for the product, other producers got on board thinking they could make as good or better product cheaper. Mass production ensued, competition drove down the price, and soy milk started taking up grocery store space where milk used to be. Voila, the GMO scare was born. They want people to be scared of the soybeans they make soy milk out of so they will go back to buying milk. It's just that simple. They claim that because the genes of the soybean aren't "natural," they should be labelled that way, even though "cows" never existed in nature until humans started selectively breeding them and modifying their genes. I had the opportunity to see an uncle of mine in Missouri put on a rubber glove and shove his hand up a cow's vagina when I was a kid. That's more dangerous than drinking soy milk, and less natural.





No, your statement is false, mine is true, I frigging hate it when people do that. Have you studied economics at the college level? I have. Consumer spending drives about 70% of an economy like that of the U.S. That's why the economy is sluggish. This thread is about climate change, but you went there, so let me break it down to you using some arguments I've used before to keep it quick. These figures are about a year old and from memory. The four Walton heirs, owners of Walmart, are worth about $150 billion, or about 1% of the entire U.S. gross domestic product for an entire year. They employ about 1.4 million Americans and pay them about $27,000 a piece per year. That's an average, which includes not just floor staff, but managers and people at all levels of the heirarchy. So, a few years back, Walmart was in the news because they were collecting canned goods and donations from customers so that their employees could have Thanksgiving dinner. That's the sluggish economy in a nutshell. It's the reason "supply side economics," or "Reaganomics" has been proven not to work. When millions of people are out of work, and millions more are barely scraping by, a business owner may notice he has no customers, all of his employees are standing around, his inventory is collecting dust. How is the government giving him a tax break supposed to stimulate the economy? So he can hire more people to stand around? So he can buy more inventory to collect dust? Maybe open another location where more employees can stand around watching inventory collect dust? The alleged "job creator" can't do anything about the economy. He needs customers. His employees are those customers. Think about the Waltons. If they paid those 1.4 million people better, my fictional business owner would have busier employees. If McDonalds did the same, he would have even more. By paying his employees better instead of pocketing a big tax break, he is doing his part to make the consumer economy go.

You make some points I can sort of agree with in your illustration about pre-wrapped sandwiches. If you like those sorts of example and would like a better grasp of this subject, I suggest you read this:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Nature-Economics-Survival/dp/0865716730




No. The most common business model for success is to "find a need, and fill it." This goes back to your sandwich illustration. The inventors of the prewrapped sandwich probably had the foresight to realize people in cities were working long hours in factories and had a limited period of time for lunch. Great idea, but people were turned off by the idea of prepackaged food in those days when home cooked meals were more the standard. So, it took some marketing to get the "good idea" out there. Steve Jobs fits your illustration. He was brilliant, he created products so ingenious that everybody wanted them and were willing to stand in line for days at a time eating prewrapped sandwiches to get them first. Most people who call themselves "job creators" are not Steve Jobs material. They merely ride waves of supply and demand created largely by consumers spending money when they have it. By the way, that book I posted a link to also has an example that will help explain what happened to your blueberries; funny twist, at least to me, is that his best analogy is what happened to the shoe cobbler, not blueberry cobbler.



I know why. That's an excuse. I used to eat cheeseburgers pretty much every day. When I was 18 or 19, my diet was incredibly poor. I ate whatever I wanted, which was actually just a few things: Cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, potato chips, doughnuts, anything chocolate. You couldn't have force fed me a salad. I didn't have to go to rehab to get off junk food. I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms. I simply decided I needed to start eating healthier, and did. I have a hard time believing people when they blame "food addiction" for being overweight. I get hungry too, just like everyone else. We are all quite literally addicted to food. It's a survival mechanism. 50,000 years ago, if you found something sweet or fatty, your body would respond and say, "Hey, that tastes good, eat more of that. We could use it to survive." Now, when there is a fast food restaurant on every corner, you have think about what you are doing. It's sort of like with the penis. I have a biological urge to reproduce. That doesn't mean I have to act on it every time it crosses my mind. If I did, I would be locked up. Similarly, I don't need to go diving into a bag of potato chips every day just because they taste good. I try to control my brain rather than letting it control me. I'm not a dog or cat. They get those same sorts of "addictive" chemicals you spoke of in their pet chow and respond by having brand preferences, but they don't know about nutrition like human beings, so they have an excuse.


Again, I disagree. I'm 47, so I remember when it USED to be an exhaustive process to research a company. Now, we have the Internet, so there are really no excuses. It's pretty easy now. In fact, I heard about an app for your phone so specific that you can check and see if a company donated money to Republican or Democratic candidates and causes. Sorry, but a person's life is a person's life. Everyone has the right and the ability to find out whether or not the stuff they buy is good or bad for them and the environment they share with the rest of humanity. If it isn't important enough to a person to do that research and vote with their dollars, choosing instead to ignorantly empower big business with their dollars and ruin the health of themselves and the environment in the process, then they really have no one to blame but themselves. This is a cultural issue in my eyes. Everyone wants to "live for the moment" because "we might not be here tomorrow." That just exacerbates the problem. People buy stuff to make themselves feel good. People don't want to think about consequences. Ours is a superficial, materialistic culture. I'm no fascist, but I do think there's been too much focus on the "individual" and "individual rights" in the U.S. "Socialism" is practically profanity here, as is "communism." God forbid people should sacrifice the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want to in order to be part of a larger community with common goals. I think being against socialism is "antisocial" to a degree. We are social creatures like monkeys and dogs, not solitary animals like cheetahs. People seem to have forgotten, we're all part of a single entity: humanity. We're all part of that tiny blue pixel Voyager saw when it turned back and looked at Earth from billions of miles away. In an age when a perspective like that is even possible and nearly everyone on the planet is interconnected electronically, that's the one thing we shouldn't have forgotten. Craig W. Thomson, Wed, 16th Mar 2016


You mean like when they found 127 bones, most from a single hippo with a few elephant and rhino bones mixed in, and you extrapolated that to mean the climate was warm enough 120,000 years ago for "several such animals" to have "crossed a land bridge" to Derby? You can't massage and fudge data any better than that. Give me a break. Maybe some prehistoric explorers took some bones home as a trophy or a resource or something, because there's no way a hippo, a rhino and an elephant befriended one another and wandered up to the U.K. via a land bridge.

Which wouldn't be possible anyway. You could get to the British Isles via an "ice bridge" during heavy glaciation, but sea level should be higher when the British Isles are experiencing tropical weather, as ice caps and glaciation would be negligible during such a warm period, covering any land bridges ...

Unless you know of some ultra-fast tectonic process I've never heard of ...

How the heck did you get a moderator position at a science forum ?? I only have 8 hours of Biology and 8 hours of Physics at the college level, and I'm finding all sorts of holes in your science.
Craig W. Thomson, Wed, 16th Mar 2016



What the F!

How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?

You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad. Tim the Plumber, Wed, 16th Mar 2016



Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/52.20.gif

Duh.


You are arguing that the human population wil just keep on growing until it is just not possible to grow anymore. The signs do not point to that, all advanced ecconomies have slowing population growth. Infact the more advanced an civilisation becomes the less children it's members have, as most countries are set to advance, population should stablise and not grow exponentailly. not forgetting dieases ofcourse which are slowly actually becoming medication resistent.


I disagree. It takes 2,000 calories or so per day to sustain a human life. Everything else is optional. That's a pretty extreme point of view, but it is factual.



Factual it might be, extreme also, your extremity misses the point, why under such circumstances are people consuming soo much more then they need?



Sure you can but why should anyone? The system we all live in seeks to promote an appathetic attitude in the population(and for many reasons). You are crediting the population with more agency then the system wants them to have; apathy is in the end a by product from a form of indoctrination.



If the mass population stated doing that the management would panic.



Umm intimidation, how much to blame are those that sucum to fear compared to those that induce it?





No, your statement is false, mine is true, I frigging hate it when people do that. Have you studied economics at the college level? I have. Consumer spending drives about 70% of an economy like that of the U.S. That's why the economy is sluggish.


You honestly want to argue that your college education was an unbiased look at how ecconomics actually works? The current keynesian ecconomic models used are rediculas, I'll stay with Austrian school I think, I have for the record studied some ecconomics, But certainly studied more in the areas of advertising and marketing tho.



Not the case its a question of motives, if all he is interested is profits then he wont do anything however, if he was prepared to take less profit share more with the staff they would shop at other places and the staff at other places would shop at wall mart and so on, it's the gross and obsessive demands companies have for profits thats gonna kill them, it's a non ractional model of business in my oppinion.




Yeah ofcourse, my point, but you'll find companies today are not interested in their employees in the way they used to be, when complanies were smaller and more intermate.





No. The most common business model for success is to "find a need, and fill it."


Make a need and fill it. Drug dealers do that. You are putting individual agency in a position that really it does not hold in society and deminishing the affects of cohercion. Both are present but the individual does not have the resourses the cohercers do.



I know why. That's an excuse. I used to eat cheeseburgers pretty much every day. When I was 18 or 19, my diet was incredibly poor. I ate whatever I wanted, which was actually just a few things: Cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, potato chips, doughnuts, anything chocolate. You couldn't have force fed me a salad. I didn't have to go to rehab to get off junk food. I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms. I simply decided I needed to start eating healthier, and did.


And that's great and your choice.



And thats great and everyone should, self control, education and responsibility are keys to human freedom, sadly human freedoms are not really being promoted socially, Going back to apathy issue, and global warming itself, wether true or false apathetic people are not interested. If humanity is to improve our enviromental situation, apathy will only get in the way. I am a community of soultions person, so I see that some technologies can take up the slack that apathetic people will cause, but really only self control and people actually caring about their world and society will really be able to cause a true change. If you just use technology to answer issues people might even become more destructive in their enviromental behaviour as no consideration is given to how they live and act. It's a real issue here systems of social control are preventing human development and slowing attempts at effective responces to enviromental issues.

Still I will say that I see habitat destruction as a far greater issue then global warming, if we can maintain, protect and increase habitates for all the different speacies that live on this earth, even if tempertures rise, many spieaces will be given a better chance at adapting and coping, wiping out the rain forests is a nightmare. 



Cant agree if a pet rejects a food it will be because of something they find wrong with it. They say cats are choosy, but in my experience they'll eat anything provided it does not have signs of danger.
Littlestone, Wed, 16th Mar 2016

Had to break it into to post too many words for one:


Again, I disagree. I'm 47, so I remember when it USED to be an exhaustive process to research a company. Now, we have the Internet, so there are really no excuses. It's pretty easy now. In fact, I heard about an app for your phone so specific that you can check and see if a company donated money to Republican or Democratic candidates and causes. Sorry, but a person's life is a person's life. Everyone has the right and the ability to find out whether or not the stuff they buy is good or bad for them and the environment they share with the rest of humanity.



An yet companies do everything they can to hide potencailly damaging information, you are ignoring reality, to say what you are. The media isnt interested in reporting, they risk losing their advertising fees.

I see you hold your self as a self made man, but you should not let that cause you to belittle those you feel are lower then you, I would say it would be better to show some understanding and try to encourage people to do the same, everyone is not like you, some things are harder for others than they are for you and vice versa, the 'If I can, you all can, and all should' attitude can come across as slightly elitist.



Well sorry the entire idea of voting with dollars is a disgusting one, which inherently faviours the richest first, I could really careless how good a company is a making a product when it comes to decision making about the future of society, being a good cake maker bares no relation or qualifcation or right to answer those questions.

I believe in democracy, the coporate polyarchy that changed democracys defintion to mean "business rules" is utterly undemocratic.

If you work for a company what power does the manager have? They cant change anything, they follow proceedures, they have no say over the running of the company really save in the odd place where they are delegated a responsibility. As an employee what does it change if you can vote for who manages you? Who ever it is they are going to do the same job and demand the same things- as your manager. 

Now understand politician are managers in the current "democratic" system, they have no power really its been given away, without public consultation.



You have not understood the Thatcher Reagun revolution to say this, politicains empowered business not the people.



I would argue technically you could be considered one, if you feel that business control over society and politics- is a good thing. You are not seeing the wood for the trees on this issue.



Cant agree, there has not been enought



Well these things do not have to be mutually exclusive. And Groups themsleves can take on asspects of individual behaviour. Like it or not we are all a part of a larger group, however common goals is where it gets scarey.



Not at all, depends on what you mean by social, if you mean a group you hang with and that group is communist, being a socialist could be considered anti-social, if you mean society, certainly not, it's all relative, socailism has its good and bad points as does capitalism and any other ideology you might care to mention. I can't agree that simply being against a certain idea inherently makes a person anti social. unless their idea is anti-social-ism itself, in which case they are by definition.




Come on, people have forgotton? You really ignore the elephants in the room, seem to think you live in a society that has just appeared naturally with no influences or social planning.

Devide and conquer.



Well it's a rather recent reality, some have not woken up to it yet, so it';s not really something that today can be forgotton, thats for tommorrow. Littlestone, Wed, 16th Mar 2016



What the F!

How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?

You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad.


Hold his breath :)

Clean coal power plants would reduce co2 emmissions, as would moulton salt reactors.

Reverse combustion systems placed over cooling tanks to capture and so covert CO2 emmissions.

You can tell me there are not ways to reduce Co2 emmisions  without shutting off power.

we are wasteful even with waste.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turning-carbon-dioxide-back-into-fuel/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Totally possible to increase energy production and reduce Co2 emissions at the same time. Still I'd like to see more research into new forests really, and maybe new forest housing.
http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://a.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/slideshow_large/slideshow/2015/06/3047952-slide-s-2-in-these-new-neighborhoods-the-houses-look-like-trees.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047952/in-these-urban-forest-neighborhoods-the-houses-are-disguised-as-trees&h=422&w=750&tbnid=dTG3TBGlDi_c9M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=160&docid=GZk3xuYOFSjceM&usg=__ZL0snpL5JRsVo7QoKKXzZnK3Ktc=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk5-lmMbLAhVjQZoKHYUzDgEQ9QEISzAH

P.s we really dont have any wealth growth, it's all gone upstairs, we just have ever increasing bubles of fiat debt paper and the illusion of a house bubble. Littlestone, Wed, 16th Mar 2016


Stop farming animals for food.

alancalverd, Wed, 16th Mar 2016


LOL,

That would help a lot.  Unfortunately, its difficult to persuade ppl to refrain from consuming animal products.

I'm a rather spotty vegan. Not because I want to be green, kind to animals, etc.  Its a personal choice, for my health.  I'm eating veggies & pasta, right now, infact.  Once in a while, I break down and eat meat, or some kind of processed cheese product.  Not too often, if I can help it, but us Yank's find it difficult to not eat meat, cheese &/or milk.

I urge friends & family to be more veganistic, and they scoff and contend with issues from not minding their diets better.  :(

Education helps, but you can't make ppl learn when they choose not to. JoeBrown, Wed, 16th Mar 2016


You said a mouthful. I agree 100%.

They did away with literacy tests for voters because that was considered unconstitutional, but it would be nice if we could at least make candidates for political office take a test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8 Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 17th Mar 2016

See the whole discussion | Make a comment

Not working please enable javascript
EPSRC
Powered by UKfast
STFC
Genetics Society
ipDTL