Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[El Cid]

 

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

 

That is indeed what the Royal Society says, I assume that they have done the, very complicated, maths.

[Tim Grindley]

Like this one.

 

Thawing permafrost releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but this has not yet been included in models of the future climate. Permafrost covers nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere at present and is estimated to contain 1,700 gigatonnes of carbon – twice the amount currently in the atmosphere. As it thaws, it could push global warming past one of the key "tipping points" that scientists believe could lead to runaway climate change.

 

Yep, permafrost is a store or rotting stuff and when it warms up it gives off methane.

 

However, if you get a map of where the permafrost is in the world you will see that it is a vast zone in centred in central Asia and Central North America. If you think about the distance into this lump which represents a 1 degree, or 3 degree temperature rise you see that this represents an utterly minescule fraction of the potential methane release. Don't lose any sleep.

[El Cid]

 

Don't lose any sleep.

 

Is your logic better thean the 'Royal Society'?

[Tim Grindley]

maxmaximus

 

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.Originally Posted by

 

If you have have evidence that the climate over the last centuary has been dominated by the effects of human activy you will be nomiated (by me if none else!) for a Nobel prise!!

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 22:55 ----------

 

Is your logic better thean the 'Royal Society'?

 

No.

 

I use3 their nimbers which say ther is nothing to worry about.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 22:56 ----------

 

Is your logic better thean the 'Royal Society'?

 

No.

 

I use their nimbers which say ther is nothing to worry about.

[maxmaximus]

Yep, permafrost is a store or rotting stuff and when it warms up it gives off methane.

 

However, if you get a map of where the permafrost is in the world you will see that it is a vast zone in centred in central Asia and Central North America. If you think about the distance into this lump which represents a 1 degree, or 3 degree temperature rise you see that this represents an utterly minescule fraction of the potential methane release. Don't lose any sleep.

 

It appears to be where I would expect to find it, which is also the region that is warming the most.

 

Permafrost zones occupy up to 24 per cent of the exposed land area of the Northern Hemisphere. Permafrost is also common within the vast continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean. This subsea permafrost formed during the last glacial period when global sea levels were more than 100 m lower than at present and the shelves were exposed to very harsh climate conditions. Subsea permafrost is slowly thawing at many locations. Permafrost of various temperatures and continuity also exists in mountainous areas, due to the cold climate at high elevations.

 

Circum-Arctic Map of Permafrost and Ground-Ice Conditions

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2013 at 07:30 ----------

 

If you have have evidence that the climate over the last centuary has been dominated by the effects of human activy you will be nomiated (by me if none else!) for a Nobel prise!!

 

I rely on common sense and the evidence presented by others which is consistent with my scientific knowledge.

Edited March 20, 2013 by maxmaximus

[retep]

New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real

 

http://www.thegwpf.org/report-global-temperature-standstill-real/

[Cyclone]

There has been a 1 degree warming since 1900, I dont know what the weather was like back in 1900, but I know that we had much colder winters back in the 1970s. Perhaps that was just local weather, what about the climate of the rest of the world?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/temperatures-may-rise-6c-by-2100-says-study-8281272.html

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 21:40 ----------

 

 

The world is hottest it has been since the end of the ice age - and the temperature's still rising

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-world-is-hottest-it-has-been-since-the-end-of-the-ice-age--and-the-temperatures-still-rising-8525089.html

 

According to a more recent report it's the same temperature it was in the recent holocene, 2500 years ago...

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2013 at 08:51 ----------

 

To come to that conclusion would need significantly more information than is available. High CO2 with low output for the sun could result in a cooler planet than low CO2 and high output from the sun, giving the false impression that CO2 doesn’t cause the planet to warm up. CO2 traps heat which is easily proven.

Yes it is. But simple facts are of no use in modelling an incredibly complex system.

 

Historical proxy evidence shows times when CO2 was higher than now, but the temperature was lower, and vice versa, lower temperature and higher CO2. It's also possible to proxy solar output for those times.

 

The evidence seems to be that we are massively over estimating the effect that CO2 levels have.

 

 

 

I agree but that doesn't alter the fact that many people fear nuclear power.

 

Politicians are supposed to do what is right, not only what is popular.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2013 at 08:54 ----------

 

That is indeed what the Royal Society says, I assume that they have done the, very complicated, maths.

 

It's not simple maths to calculate this, it's a model, and our models at the moment are pretty much bunkum. We can't calculate whether it's going to snow next week, but some people pretend we can calculate the climate for the next 50 or 100 years.

[maxmaximus]

According to a more recent report it's the same temperature it was in the recent holocene, 2500 years ago.

At that time what was the concentration of green houses gasses and how did solar activity compare to now.

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. But simple facts are of no use in modelling an incredibly complex system.

 

Historical proxy evidence shows times when CO2 was higher than now, but the temperature was lower, and vice versa, lower temperature and higher CO2. It's also possible to proxy solar output for those times.

 

During these times how did solar activity compare to now.

 

 

The evidence seems to be that we are massively over estimating the effect that CO2 levels have.

What evidence? The evidence appears to suggest that climate prediction of the past failed to take the sun into consideration.

[Cyclone]

At that time what was the concentration of green houses gasses and how did solar activity compare to now.

Crikey, you want me to look it all up for you. Would you like me to prepare your argument as well

 

 

 

 

During these times how did solar activity compare to now.

 

 

 

What evidence? The evidence appears to suggest that climate prediction of the past failed to take the sun into consideration.

The evidence of how the models we keep making keep being wrong.

[maxmaximus]

Crikey, you want me to look it all up for you. Would you like me to prepare your argument as well

I’m not the one using past CO2 levels as a counter argument for global AGW.

The evidence of how the models we keep making keep being wrong.

 

Just because the models aren't very accurate isn't proof that they over estimated the affect of CO2. It’s more likely they just underestimated the suns roll in climate change.