Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

Can you show peaks of temperatures after great erruptions on the temperature graphs?
Do you understand the concept of buffers?
The biosphere and oceans can cope with a certain base level of volcanic and other natural sources of those gasses, in fact it's probably evolved to depend upon them. It can also cope with shortish periods where those gases spike due to increased volcanism by, essentially, "buffering" them in the way that he body buffers CO2 or lactate spikes resulting from exercise or hypoxia to maintain homeostasis.
So you might not see particularly high peaks following great eruptions as the excess will be buffered. Problems will probably arise, however, when the buffer is approaching capacity...
 
Do you understand the concept of buffers?
The biosphere and oceans can cope with a certain base level of volcanic and other natural sources of those gasses, in fact it's probably evolved to depend upon them. It can also cope with shortish periods where those gases spike due to increased volcanism by, essentially, "buffering" them in the way that he body buffers CO2 or lactate spikes resulting from exercise or hypoxia to maintain homeostasis.
So you might not see particularly high peaks following great eruptions as the excess will be buffered. Problems will probably arise, however, when the buffer is approaching capacity...
I'm struggling to find evidence that he understands the concept of science
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
The meteorologists I work alongside don't need to and work in the commercial sector....none disagree with the consensus. Which is that we're in the shit.
So they are infected with the consenus groupthink then. weather and climate are two different things. You don't get promoted unless you follow the party line, look at government etc.
 
Imagine the scenario in 11,000 years time when the planet starts returning to an Ice Age. Scientists will be demanding that the people do something about the 1.5deg cooling off otherwise they will be doomed, thousands of species will die, the oceans will retract and leave cities high and dry. Citizens will insist that Governments spend trillions on earth warming technology, burn fossil fuel will be the cry, dam the rivers, raze the forests or set them on fire, we need more CO2...and the cycle goes on. It seems to me that after the last Ice Age, the Earth, Humans, and most Species survived without spending a penny.

(Before I get flamed - I do think we should prevent man made pollution and find alternate sources of Energy).
 
In 1952, 4,000 people died in London over a 5 day period due to smog, 12,000 in total over the following month.

Greens talk utter Horlicks about pollution. There was no glorious unpolluted past.
When there were only 6000 people on the whole planet sharpening flints and throwing mammoth bones outside of the cave entrance, I guess the planet’s climate system wouldn’t be too affected. And even as time moved on and Spartacus and his workmates in the lead mines leaving run off into the rivers was naughty but still coped with.

The major effect which yout illustrated amply with you example was industrialisation and of course there being significantly more than 6000 people on the planet.

Forums, and threads like this seem to make everyone more expert than the experts and rubbish general scientific consensus.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t have opinions and be sceptical, but what i’m Seeing from many here is biased scepticism and a willingness to believe counter arguments even when put forward by that major climate Expert Norman Lamont or obvious charlatans I posted on up thread.
 
I think a lot of the issue is that the media are not very good at differentiating between climate scientists and climate activists.

The science behind greenhouse gases and global warming is about as concrete as it's possible to get. The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation and that causes a temperature increase is provable with a couple of bottles, thermometers, a desk lamp and an Alka-Seltzer tablet.

The models and projections built on that are much less reliable. How much so depends on who is making the models, what assumptions they made, if they are looking at likely or worst case scenarios, the quality of data they are starting from, how much computing power they have access to etc.

The issue is what tends to get reported in the media is a statement from a climate research team along the lines of "Carbon dioxide levels have increased rapidly in the last 100 years and global temperature rise is closely correlated with that increase". What then follows is an interview with some swivel-eyed loon who insists it's the end of the world unless everyone starts walking to work and weaving their own cheese. People recognise the activists for the idiots they are and then discard the whole thing, including the science, as bollocks.

It's the same way that the classification of processed meats as a category 1 carcinogen is real science but people saw the headlines, read the ill-informed waffle about how 2 rashers of bacon will kill you and promptly decided the whole thing was nonsense (which it isn't).

How many of these 'climate change' scientists are relying on perpetuating man made climate change myth for their sinecures and positions.

The plant has been around for 6.4 billion years and climate has always changed and will continue to do so.
That's not really how science works. The first person to comprehensively show that global warming is not real, or is real but not due to human actions, is guaranteed a Nobel prize and their name in the history books. To suggest that every scientist involved in climate research is making it up to keep their jobs smacks a little of conspiracy theory.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Do you understand the concept of buffers?
The biosphere and oceans can cope with a certain base level of volcanic and other natural sources of those gasses, in fact it's probably evolved to depend upon them. It can also cope with shortish periods where those gases spike due to increased volcanism by, essentially, "buffering" them in the way that he body buffers CO2 or lactate spikes resulting from exercise or hypoxia to maintain homeostasis.
So you might not see particularly high peaks following great eruptions as the excess will be buffered. Problems will probably arise, however, when the buffer is approaching capacity...
Talking about 'capacity of buffer' we can remember, for example, Toba erruption, when 2800 km^3 of lava (very rich with CO_2 and H_2O) were errupted simultaneously (or many more seriouse erruptions) . It was more, than total amount of fossil fuel burnt by humankind for all its history.
So, what will happen, if humanity burnt all remaining on the Earth fossil fuel in one day? I know, it is technically impossible, but just for modelling?
Something hardly more seriouse than in case of Toba erruption - may be, there will be global cooling (minus 1-5C degrees) and one or few 'year without summer', because of ash, may be - global warming (plus 1-5C degrees) and one or few 'year without winter', but nothing really catastrophic. The Ocean can compensate much more seriouse affects.
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
I think a lot of the issue is that the media are not very good at differentiating between climate scientists and climate activists.

The science behind greenhouse gases and global warming is about as concrete as it's possible to get. The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation and that causes a temperature increase is provable with a couple of bottles, thermometers, a desk lamp and an Alka-Seltzer tablet.

The models and projections built on that are much less reliable. How much so depends on who is making the models, what assumptions they made, if they are looking at likely or worst case scenarios, the quality of data they are starting from, how much computing power they have access to etc.

The issue is what tends to get reported in the media is a statement from a climate research team along the lines of "Carbon dioxide levels have increased rapidly in the last 100 years and global temperature rise is closely correlated with that increase". What then follows is an interview with some swivel-eyed loon who insists it's the end of the world unless everyone starts walking to work and weaving their own cheese. People recognise the activists for the idiots they are and then discard the whole thing, including the science, as bollocks.

It's the same way that the classification of processed meats as a category 1 carcinogen is real science but people saw the headlines, read the ill-informed waffle about how 2 rashers of bacon will kill you and promptly decided the whole thing was nonsense (which it isn't).


That's not really how science works. The first person to comprehensively show that global warming is not real, or is real but not due to human actions, is guaranteed a Nobel prize and their name in the history books. To suggest that every scientist involved in climate research is making it up to keep their jobs smacks a little of conspiracy theory.
hanson and the 'hockey stick' or WEU and the climate gate files?
 
hanson and the 'hockey stick' or WEU and the climate gate files?
You're going to have to help me out here, what exactly are the issues? I don't know what WEU is but by climategate I'm assuming you mean when emails from the UEA team were hacked. Which were then investigated four times by different bodies that found no evidence of any wrongdoing?
 
Talking about 'capacity of buffer' we can remember, for example, Toba erruption, when 2800 km^3 of lava (very rich with CO_2 and H_2O) were errupted simultaneously (or many more seriouse erruptions) . It was more, than total amount of fossil fuel burnt by humankind for all its history.
So, what will happen, if humanity burnt all remaining on the Earth fossil fuel in one day? I know, it is technically impossible, but just for modelling?
Something hardly more seriouse than in case of Toba erruption - may be, there will be global cooling (minus 1-5C degrees) and one or few 'year without summer', because of ash, may be - global warming (plus 1-5C degrees) and one or few 'year without winter', but nothing really catastrophic. The Ocean can compensate much more seriouse affects.
This would be the Toba eruption that caused a mean global temperature drop of 3-4C and a millennium of cooler temperatures? Sounds fairly catastrophic to me.
Not sure how it relates to what we are experiencing now though as the major effect was atmospheric dust rather than gasses and I'd hypothesise that rapid cooling combined with atmospheric ash would remove a lot of the water vapour as precipitation . I'd also like to know where you got your assertion that it threw out more CO2 than all the fossil fuel burnt.
 
I think a lot of the issue is that the media are not very good at differentiating between climate scientists and climate activists.

The science behind greenhouse gases and global warming is about as concrete as it's possible to get. The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation and that causes a temperature increase is provable with a couple of bottles, thermometers, a desk lamp and an Alka-Seltzer tablet.

The models and projections built on that are much less reliable. How much so depends on who is making the models, what assumptions they made, if they are looking at likely or worst case scenarios, the quality of data they are starting from, how much computing power they have access to etc.

The issue is what tends to get reported in the media is a statement from a climate research team along the lines of "Carbon dioxide levels have increased rapidly in the last 100 years and global temperature rise is closely correlated with that increase". What then follows is an interview with some swivel-eyed loon who insists it's the end of the world unless everyone starts walking to work and weaving their own cheese. People recognise the activists for the idiots they are and then discard the whole thing, including the science, as bollocks.

It's the same way that the classification of processed meats as a category 1 carcinogen is real science but people saw the headlines, read the ill-informed waffle about how 2 rashers of bacon will kill you and promptly decided the whole thing was nonsense (which it isn't).


That's not really how science works. The first person to comprehensively show that global warming is not real, or is real but not due to human actions, is guaranteed a Nobel prize and their name in the history books. To suggest that every scientist involved in climate research is making it up to keep their jobs smacks a little of conspiracy theory.
Agreed. The actual science behind all this is going to be full, I guess, of best interpretations of data and research and modelling the likely outcomes from it with the results couched with caveats and assumptions. Terribly boring for the layman and possibly the results nuanced.

This all needs distilling into easily digestible ‘news pieces’ for the layman and as per usual journalists can mangle the message, lose the context and inadvertently insert inaccuracies as well as exaggeration.

Doesn’t mean the science is wrong.

And it doesn’t mean that scientists don’t have to keep updating what is a complex modelling of the effects as new data and observations are noted.
 
This would be the Toba eruption that caused a mean global temperature drop of 3-4C and a millennium of cooler temperatures? Sounds fairly catastrophic to me.
Not sure how it relates to what we are experiencing now though as the major effect was atmospheric dust rather than gasses and I'd hypothesise that rapid cooling combined with atmospheric ash would remove a lot of the water vapour as precipitation . I'd also like to know where you got your assertion that it threw out more CO2 than all the fossil fuel burnt.
Don’t count on him knowing what he’s on about.

He’s the court jester of this forum.

But i’ll Interested to see his reply. If you ever one which is halfway sensible.
 
I'd put the cutting down of the rainforest at the top of the "Stupidest things homo sapiens ever did" list.
We've already cut down half of it, with the rest likely to be gone by 2060.
Most of the cleared land is too poor to grow anything else, except oil palm, much of which goes into "biodiesel" which is helping save the planet from increased CO2...

This species is insane.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
This would be the Toba eruption that caused a mean global temperature drop of 3-4C and a millennium of cooler temperatures? Sounds fairly catastrophic to me.
First, you should read the whole article from wikipedia, including
Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia
"Physical data contradicting the winter hypothesisEdit
Archaeologists, led by the University of Cambridge's Dr Christine Lane, in 2013, reported finding a microscopic layer of glassy volcanic ash in sediments of Lake Malawi, and definitively linked the ash to the 75,000-year-old Toba super-eruption, but found no change in fossil type close to the ash layer, something that would be expected following a severe volcanic winter. They concluded that the largest known volcanic eruption in the history of the human species did not significantly alter the climate of East Africa,[23][24] attracting criticism from Richard Roberts.[25] Lane explained, "We examined smear slides at a 2-mm interval, corresponding to subdecadal resolution, and X-ray fluorescence scans run at 200-µm intervals correspond to subannual resolution. We observed no obvious change in sediment composition or Fe/Ti ratio, suggesting that no thermally driven overturn of the water column occurred following the Toba supereruption."[26] In 2015, a new study on the climate of East Africa supported Lane's conclusion, that there was "no significant cooling associated with Mount Toba".[27]"

"A study by Chad Yost and colleagues of cores from Lake Malawi dating to the period of the Toba supereruption showed no evidence of a volcanic winter, and they argue that there was no effect on African humans.[52] In the view ofJohn Hawks, the study confirms evidence from a variety of studies that the eruption did not have a major climatic effect or any effect on human numbers.[53]"

Second: while "global cooling" is disputable, nobody suggest, that such amount of greenhouse gases (actually more, than all human produced by burning fossil fuel) even realised simultaneously, caused any kind of "global warming" or 'acidification of ocean' or sort of this...
Third: there was no any massive extinctions of plants or animals.
Fourth: this cooling (if it was) was not more significant than any other coolings and warmings during Pleistocene.
Fifth: We see, that all that amount of the Carbon Dioxide was sucessfully compensated by the Ocean buffers.
Not sure how it relates to what we are experiencing now though as the major effect was atmospheric dust rather than gasses and I'd hypothesise that rapid cooling combined with atmospheric ash would remove a lot of the water vapour as precipitation . I'd also like to know where you got your assertion that it threw out more CO2 than all the fossil fuel burnt.
For example, start here:

List of largest volcanic eruptions - Wikipedia
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
I'd put the cutting down of the rainforest at the top of the "Stupidest things homo sapiens ever did" list.
We've already cut down half of it, with the rest likely to be gone by 2060.
Most of the cleared land is too poor to grow anything else, except oil palm, much of which goes into "biodiesel" which is helping save the planet from increased CO2...

This species is insane.
Ha! Large forests are antropogenic landscapes, caused by extinctions of large herbivores. When and where there were mamonthes and other megafauna, there were no forests. Trees don't regenerate as well as grass, so where are large amounts of elephants, mamonth, etc, there are Savannah, Steppes, Perries etc.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
What was the really quick 'global warming' - it was Allerød oscillation between Middle (or, in some places - Older) and Younger Dryas.
Allerød oscillation - Wikipedia

In the very few tens of years, may be even some years, temperature was raised from the typical Ice Age to the almost modern values.
Why? Nobody knows. Evidently, not because of the industrial burning of the fossil fuel.
 

Latest Threads

Top