Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Tim Grindley]

Antarctica is a massive continent and couple of degree increase in temperature isn't going to melt the ice.

Ice was expected to increase at the south pole as weather patterns changed, increasing the temperature causes more precipitation and because its still well below zero more ice will form.

 

So much for any sea level rise then.

 

I always thought that a warming would actually reduce sea levels a bit but I was expecting increases in rainfall in arid areas to soak up water into the water table thus lowering sea levels by 50cm or so. Looks like I have underestimated the lowering of sea levels.

[MrSmith]

So much for any sea level rise then.

 

I always thought that a warming would actually reduce sea levels a bit but I was expecting increases in rainfall in arid areas to soak up water into the water table thus lowering sea levels by 50cm or so. Looks like I have underestimated the lowering of sea levels.

 

Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s..

[Lockjaw]

Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s..

 

Hiya Smithy.

 

I notice that, as expected, you've realised you don't, actually, understand what you're talking about and so have dipped out of the conversation we've been having but I'm willing to give you another chance.

 

So, come on, stop spouting what other people are telling you to and engage in some actual scientific discussion.

 

At what point do you think "the atmosphere reaches a point where any increase in GH gases will have no effect? Do you know? Can you google it? If not, why not? Does anyone know?

 

Come on old chap ... Let's do some actual thinking here rather than doing as we're told.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 10:15 ----------

 

Just think how much better that feedback loop would work if we hadn't chopped millions of trees down and turned the land that was once rainforest and desert.

 

According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

 

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants, boosting growth by as much as a third.

 

However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.

 

Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit. Plants lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter. Higher CO2 levels mean they do not need to open these pores as much, reducing water loss.

 

However, it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.

 

These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent.

Limiting factors

 

However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.

 

The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation.

 

For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees).

 

Whilst more erudite and with fewer abuses of language, that reads to me very much like the EDL supporters' responses to the burnt Mosque thread.

 

We-e-e-ll, yes, this is a bit embarassing and kinda buggers up our argument a bit but ... well [commence wriggling].

 

As stated above, NS, a publication I have followed for the last thirty years or so, have an agenda just like everyone else.

[truman]

here's a link to a paper that seems to show atmospheric CO2 lags temperature

 

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/135-atmospheric-co2-not-linked-to-humans-says-global-and-planetary-journal.html#.USZrmwv4Cus.twitter

[MrSmith]

here's a link to a paper that seems to show atmospheric CO2 lags temperature

 

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/135-atmospheric-co2-not-linked-to-humans-says-global-and-planetary-journal.html#.USZrmwv4Cus.twitter

 

Given the right circumstance the planet could warm up and cause an increase in CO2.

A different set of circumstance and the planet can cool whilst CO2 in increasing.

Another set of circumstance and CO2 could fall whilst the planet is warming.

Another set of circumstance and increases in CO2 will cause the planet to warm.

 

So.

 

If the increase in CO2 we are now measuring is nothing to do with human activity, were did it come from?

What happens to the CO2 humans release when we burn fossil fuels?

Why as the average global temperature increased?

Why is the CO2 not lagging the temperature increase this time?

 

Answer, CO2 along with other green house gasses are released by human activity and because the earth can't remove them as fast as we can release them, the average global temperature as increased.

[truman]

Answer, CO2 along with other green house gasses are released by human activity and because the earth can't remove them as fast as we can release them, the average global temperature as increased.

 

So, given that we are still releasing CO2 then why no statistically relevant temperature increase for 10-15 years...?

[MrSmith]

So, given that we are still releasing CO2 then why no statistically relevant temperature increase for 10-15 years...?

 

The sun's activity has been in decline for the last few decades creating a slight cooling trend which means the sun and global temperature are going in opposite directions. The earth should be cooling but because of human activity it is warming.

[Cyclone]

Antarctica is a massive continent and couple of degree increase in temperature isn't going to melt the ice.

Ice was expected to increase at the south pole as weather patterns changed, increasing the temperature causes more precipitation and because its still well below zero more ice will form.

 

Nobody was predicting any increase in ice... It was all doom and ice melting. Until it turned out that it wasn't melting.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 18:08 ----------

 

Given the right circumstance the planet could warm up and cause an increase in CO2.

A different set of circumstance and the planet can cool whilst CO2 in increasing.

Another set of circumstance and CO2 could fall whilst the planet is warming.

Another set of circumstance and increases in CO2 will cause the planet to warm.

 

So.

 

If the increase in CO2 we are now measuring is nothing to do with human activity, were did it come from?

What happens to the CO2 humans release when we burn fossil fuels?

Why as the average global temperature increased?

Why is the CO2 not lagging the temperature increase this time?

 

Answer, CO2 along with other green house gasses are released by human activity and because the earth can't remove them as fast as we can release them, the average global temperature as increased.

 

That's a lot of different possible circumstances.

The problem is we don't know what they are and can't predict them.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 18:09 ----------

 

The sun's activity has been in decline for the last few decades creating a slight cooling trend which means the sun and global temperature are going in opposite directions. The earth should be cooling but because of human activity it is warming.

 

Who or what says that it should be cooling.

 

Given that we are completely incapable of predicting what is happening, what makes you think that we can predict what would happen if a parameter were changed.

 

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we clearly don't understand the system and are incapable of saying what it has, will and might do.

[MrSmith]

Nobody was predicting any increase in ice... It was all doom and ice melting. Until it turned out that it wasn't melting.

It is melting, its only the sea ice round antarctia that is expanding for now.

 

Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

 

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep

 

 

That's a lot of different possible circumstances.

The problem is we don't know what they are and can't predict them.

That’s because there are lots of different mechanism that affect our climate, we might not be able to predict what will happen with 100% certainty but we do know that the planet has warmed, we do know that ice as melted and is still melting, and we do know human activity is the cause.

 

 

Who or what says that it should be cooling.

 

Smarter people than you, but just to make it really basic for you, if you turn your heating down it usually gets cooler in your home but if you increase your insulation at the same time you can prevent the cooling.

 

 

 

Given that we are completely incapable of predicting what is happening, what makes you think that we can predict what would happen if a parameter were changed.

We don't have to predict what is happening because we can witness it.

 

 

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we clearly don't understand the system and are incapable of saying what it has, will and might do.

 

Why do you keep ignoring the observable facts?

[Cyclone]

There is no reason to not consider sea ice when considering the total volume of ice.

 

It hasn't warmed in 10 to 15 years now, how can you keep stating that it's warming. The figures that actually show the warming are rather suspect anyway, fudge factors, weather stations situated in urban heat islands, cherry picked data, etc...

 

We can't predict with 100%, 50% or even 25% certainty. So to summarise, we simply can't predict.

 

'Smarter' people than me. Is that the best you've got. You admit that we can't predict what the climate is doing, but you somehow think we've managed to predict what it 'should' be doing, despite not understanding how it works.

 

What we can witness is a lack of global warming at the moment, sea level rises that appear to be in line with the long term trends, etc...

 

What facts do you think I'm ignoring? And why did you answer my question with one of your own? Can you not answer this?

 

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we clearly don't understand the system and are incapable of saying what it has, will and might do.