------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity. - Paper/PDF

[Paradox]

Since the last ice age, almost 13,000 years ago, humans have prospered in a stable, predictable climate. But our generation is the last to be so blessed. In The Last Generation Fred Pearce lays bare the terrifying prognosis for our planet now being sketched out in learned scientific journals. We are at a tipping point. Climate change from now on will not be gradual, maintains Pearce - nature doesn't do gradual change. In the past, Europe's climate has switched from Arctic to tropical in three to five years. It can happen again. So forget what environmentalists have told you about nature being fragile, a helpless victim of human excess. The truth is the opposite. She is a wild and resourceful beast given to fits of rage. And now that we are provoking her beyond endurance, she is starting to seek her revenge. Read this book. Your children's future depends on it.

FRED PEARCE

If you want an edge on how to perceive our current situation then read his books.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Windguy

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn443-global-warning.html

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Glo...ng/Methane.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://www.grist.org/comments/intera...ef/index1.html

They are partial to explaining GW runaway.

Runaway Global Warming is an impossibility unless maybe the sun bakes us for a decade or two past 2012. We'll heat up which may bolster viewpoints such as yours and Gore's for a moment but our long-term trend is cooling and this is inevitable unless sea levels rise 80 meters. We have a natural thermostat on our planet and it has prevented runaway warming for millions of years. We are polluters but we are insignificant compared to Mother Nature. The proof exists and is finally making its way into the mainstream. Your position is falling into the Earth is Flat category very quickly. This trend is driven by data, evidence and a reintroduction to common sense.

~Paradox

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Runaway Global Warming is an impossibility unless maybe the sun bakes us for a decade or two past 2012. We'll heat up which may bolster viewpoints such as yours and Gore's for a moment but our long-term trend is cooling and this is inevitable unless sea levels rise 80 meters. We have a natural thermostat on our planet and it has prevented runaway warming for millions of years. We are polluters but we are insignificant compared to Mother Nature. The proof exists and is finally making its way into the mainstream. Your position is falling into the Earth is Flat category very quickly. This trend is driven by data, evidence and a reintroduction to common sense.

~Paradox

If we heat up the planet slowly yes, heat it up quickly, you break apart the ice shelves rather than just melting them which speeds up the ocean melting/rising massively, lowering albedo, releasing methane from the permafrost and bypassing any balance we may have had in stalling GW.

We only took 100 years to surpass 650,000 years worth of CO2 decrease in the atmosphere, possibly a million. 5000 years is a blink of the eye in planet terms of climate change (major changes in the past usually took that long when they caused a mass extinction in the past), 100 years is just ridiculous!

To convince me otherwise you need to show me some data. Don't worry I don't give away 100 grand, and I don't demand ridiculous proofs. Just some credible data that I can further research.

[cbacba]

we lost a lot of plant species in that period of time that just couldn't survive with such low levels of co2. aren't you for biodiversity?

Of course you are assuming that 1) the warming is caused by ghgs and 2) that man has increased the amount of them. Considering that there isn't enough forcing to account for the change in temperature (not to mention other planets undergoing similar warming and not to mention that co2 concentration appears to lag historic records of warming) it would seem more plausible to accept the notion that co2 increases are in fact a symptom of the warming that is going on rather than the cause of it which means man may not be responsible for much of any of the added amounts. After all, as the temperature rises in the oceans, the amount of co2 present in them must decrease. Couple that with the realization that the number of unknown active subsea volcanoes could number in the millions, that's a lot of heat there. That's just one more factor in the growing list of unknowns that were ignored during the formulation of the ghg myth.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by cbacba

we lost a lot of plant species in that period of time that just couldn't survive with such low levels of co2. aren't you for biodiversity?

Of course you are assuming that 1) the warming is caused by ghgs and 2) that man has increased the amount of them. Considering that there isn't enough forcing to account for the change in temperature (not to mention other planets undergoing similar warming and not to mention that co2 concentration appears to lag historic records of warming) it would seem more plausible to accept the notion that co2 increases are in fact a symptom of the warming that is going on rather than the cause of it which means man may not be responsible for much of any of the added amounts. After all, as the temperature rises in the oceans, the amount of co2 present in them must decrease. Couple that with the realization that the number of unknown active subsea volcanoes could number in the millions, that's a lot of heat there. That's just one more factor in the growing list of unknowns that were ignored during the formulation of the ghg myth.

Well do you recognise CO2 is a GHG or not? if CO2 is a GHG and man is pumping it out, does that not mean man made GHG's has a positive forcing on temperature?

You keep on mentioning the past, well what was never in the past before? Man.

And if you think volcanoes are doing it now? (you'll grab onto anything) Try and prove they weren't there a hundred years ago.

CO2 has decreased which has lead to a change in plants, yes. There were mass extinctions, yes. But now is different as the plants are use to the CO2 levels of now, 1750's. Throw in a masive change and you'll see a massive die off of nearly everything. CO2 may have been the cause of extintion of plants in the past, but plants are now evolved into far better survivors with a far greater nutrition value, that the dinosaurs had to eat tonnes to get the same nutrition. (that's one of the reasons why the dinosaurs got so big).

Mass extinctions were caused by mainly temperature changes, as what is increasing now. GW will not lead to biodiversity, you can't pull that card out of the deck and hit me with it, because it's just not true. It will take millions of years just to recover from the greatest extinction event the world has ever seen, and that is just man walking the planet. Add GW and we'll see whole ecosystems just disappear.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Windguy

Well do you recognise CO2 is a GHG or not? if CO2 is a GHG and man is pumping it out, does that not mean man made GHG's has a positive forcing on temperature?

You keep on mentioning the past, well what was never in the past before? Man.

And if you think volcanoes are doing it now? (you'll grab onto anything) Try and prove they weren't there a hundred years ago.

CO2 has decreased which has lead to a change in plants, yes. There were mass extinctions, yes. But now is different as the plants are use to the CO2 levels of now, 1750's. Throw in a masive change and you'll see a massive die off of nearly everything. CO2 may have been the cause of extintion of plants in the past, but plants are now evolved into far better survivors with a far greater nutrition value, that the dinosaurs had to eat tonnes to get the same nutrition. (that's one of the reasons why the dinosaurs got so big).

Mass extinctions were caused by mainly temperature changes, as what is increasing now. GW will not lead to biodiversity, you can't pull that card out of the deck and hit me with it, because it's just not true. It will take millions of years just to recover from the greatest extinction event the world has ever seen, and that is just man walking the planet. Add GW and we'll see whole ecosystems just disappear.

Swell, you haven't been around long enough to know anything about the past beyond your own lifespan. You presume things are different now because of man but you don't even know what the conditions were like even throughout recorded history except assumptions based on surrogates.

How do you know what the population of insects like termites has been, never mind bacteria? How do you know what the solar flux was 50 years ago, never mind 500 years ago or 500,000 years ago?

You still haven't figured out the energy balance, fundamental conservation of energy and evidently, haven't mastered understanding the Keihl and Trenberth basic balance example.

Rather you ignore science and start throwing around conjectures that violate what is known, claiming nonsense of tipping points and magical mystery forcings that are laying in wait just around the corner. It's the combination of sea monsters and the edge of the flat earth you're claiming that mankind is about to fall off of.

You're devoid of context as well.

[Paradox]

Australian cities face water shortage

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Swell, you haven't been around long enough to know anything about the past beyond your own lifespan. You presume things are different now because of man but you don't even know what the conditions were like even throughout recorded history except assumptions based on surrogates.

How do you know what the population of insects like termites has been, never mind bacteria? How do you know what the solar flux was 50 years ago, never mind 500 years ago or 500,000 years ago?

You still haven't figured out the energy balance, fundamental conservation of energy and evidently, haven't mastered understanding the Keihl and Trenberth basic balance example.

Rather you ignore science and start throwing around conjectures that violate what is known, claiming nonsense of tipping points and magical mystery forcings that are laying in wait just around the corner. It's the combination of sea monsters and the edge of the flat earth you're claiming that mankind is about to fall off of.

You're devoid of context as well.

Yes the magical mystery methane monster living in permafrost is going to bite you on your backside. Yes and the great fairies of sea level rising is going to lower the albedo effect. What I've stated is a possible future that is still a future that GW is more and more likely to cause.

K&T and your model is not what I'm arguing about. But to get your figure of 1.2W/m^2 GHG forcings? As in cutting off sixty percent of the real forcing number, you would have to half the total effect of GHG's in the atmosphere just to get that number. And if you did that, you would see 10 degrees celcius during the day and -10 at night on a hot 40 degree celcius summer day! ain't happening once again. unless the clouds were solid mirrors and 100% infrared absorbers hey!

Once again, you state a million and one natural causes for the current heating, then you also state termites are at least fifty percent of the methane levels or greater. Hasn't methane levels increased 150% since 1750? If it's termites, then it has to be man that has changed the landscape for them to thrive so well. An incredibly basic assumption for which a scientist (that you wouldn't believe anyway) didn't need to to tell me.

The GW crowd has far more reliable evidence GHG's than any other form of forcing out there, so either believe in that evidence or believe in the magical mystery forcings that you believe is the current reason for temperature increase, Oh NASA got it wrong! that's right it only happens in America.

[Paradox]

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

When it rains it pours.