TOO LATE? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Well, either we've already screwed ourselves and there is nothing to worry about or the Earth is going through cyclical climate changes much as it always has and there is nothing we can do and therefor nothing to worry about.

Either way, I'm not really worried. The Earth will do what it does, the planets will spin, the sun will shine and everything will go on as it was meant to, with or without us.

... Having seen this comment on what IS REAL, & contemplated for a second on giving up on working on my site which unites all the REAL conspiracy realities & things that need to change... But I WILL NEVER GIVE UP! The TRUTH is obvious, you just have to connect the dots, AFTER they are verified... No offense, but this view & apathetic cowardice is amplified by many semantic things that seem to make sense to the individual, & incedibly goes unchecked despite the outstanding clashes in the logic of the matter.

- You have proof that it's just a cyclical change? How about the fact that the weather is incredibly sensitive, & changes, such as deforestation & to put heavy particles that block sunlight, & is MORE than just CO2, it's Carbon Monoxide, etc. probably are having an effect, & even if it's merely a possibility, we certainly should not be making a natural cycle worse!!! - It should be socially un-acceptable to be wasting money, stinking up the air, being a slave to the Oil industry... I feel SICK when riding my bike... Are you going to tell me that SMOKE is just CO2??? Are you going to tell me that plants breath that, as Alex Jones is mininformed about? (Carbon Monoxide actually hinders a plant's ability to assimilate CO2).

So I guess we are doomed, if the majority is pathetically apathetic like this one, when a SERIOUS warning is made, even though it could be tied into the exscuse for world government, but they will get that in many ways; A staged alien invasion would get a NWO right NOW...

What also seems to be 'doing what it does' is a naiive ignorance that goes along with the entire thing we call this experience on this Planet, & it saddens me deeply that this guy gets all kinds of stars, because what??? It makes you feel like it's not such a big deal? Don't want to FACE THE MUSIC? Well, the music is playing, & it's getting louder, & louder & louder... Pretty soon you won't be smiling about it, trying to dismiss the fact that the governments have set this up, by keeping us on Oil. - I mean COME ON! - Parking meters have solar panels on them...

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by blueorder
the more we discover the less we know, one thing about humans is our amazing capacity to forget the errors of the past.

These "climate" scientists are like the new inquisition and witch hunters, just another outlet for people who wish to control and curtail other people's lifestyles- I despise most of these charalatans

Too true, jordan maxwell says it best, when he says trust someone searching for the truth never trust someone who has found it. I think we can put scientists in the "i found the truth", group.

Is it a 'lifestyle' to have to work all the time in order to pay for gas, so you can goto work, to pay for gas, so you can...

I think not, but I like the Jordan Maxwell quote. - But you are being naiive in thinking that they are just simply 'scientists' ... - They could be government scientists, to push for the carbon taxes, & population control. ... Or, there could be evidence to prove AGW & vice versa. (and no, it's not caused by man... - it's caused by man's ignorance, & allowing the corporate-state complex to provide no other energy technology except a dangerous, disgusting substance, that YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR; PAy as you go! - REAL high tech there! OOH YEAH! - It's 2008, & we're STILL burnin' gas, thinking we're cool, while giving children ashma, & putting my mother in a hospital for resperitory problems! - It's a man-made problem for only thise reasons;

IGNORANCE ENABLES TYRANNY

[edit on 10-12-2008 by Time=Now]

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
What "guys" do you speak of? Less than HALF of all researchers even agree on this ill-founded theory of Human induced Global Warming, and many who once did, are now themselves publicly coming out in opposition towards the alarmist attitude

Poppycock. Half of researchers in what?

The most recent study of climate scientists shows the vast majority actually firmly in the 'agree on this ill-founded theory' box (Pielke, Annan, & Brown).

15-20% worse than IPCC
45-50% just as IPCC
15-20% less than IPCC

97% agreed that anthro CO2 is an issue and has contributed to climate change in some way.

The previous study from Bray & Storch (2003) showed good agreement (75% that IPCC consensus is correct).

Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) have moved from complete denial to tentative acceptance very recently. And that must have been painful.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
That's not what I meant. I believe in self-empowerment and independent learning, of course, but there is definitely only so much we can learn and verify for ourselves because the information we have access to (books, the internet, television, and yes, even school) and can verify is produced by others. Short of doing real scientific investigative studies ourselves (which, I don't know about you, but I don't have the resources or capabilities to undertake,) we are at the mercy of others when it comes to our information whether we like it or not. Everything we learn, everything we read, everything we hear, and everything we see, is produced by someone else, and we have no way to independently verify it. It's not that I place scientists on pedetals, but rather that I just recognize my position. There is no way, at this moment, I can go out and confirm or deny any particular theory or hypothesis re: man-made climate change. That's just a fact, much as I might dislike it. It may not be a fact for everyone, but I can only speak for myself.

Alrighty, just didn't want you to de-credential yourself. Although you and I haven't the funding to go out and get the data, we do have access to see the data that was gathered. In addition, we can compare it to the data of other scientists. Read their explanations, summaries, etc. Scientists are just as split on this as everyone else. Primary reason? Lack of data, a problem we'll have for another thousand years or so unless we're able to recover a history we didn't record to determine if this is cyclical change.

Originally posted by majestictwo
The ocean are indeed rising in the Australian region – its happening.


[img]http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

wow, oceans rising, I thought they would remain constant forever, like they always have done, surely they have always been the same level

Originally posted by melatonin
97% agreed that anthro CO2 is an issue and has contributed to climate change in some way.

That's funny because the laws of physics state otherwise, also let's not to forget to mention that as CO2 continue to rise, global temperatures are currently falling. Doesn't kind of fit with the whole "CO2 increases the temperatures on the planet" lie we're lead to believe.

Check this site

www.middlebury.net...

Full of interesting FACTS about the fallicies of Global Warming and the hoax that is man's contribution to it all

Originally posted by majestictwo
I can see what’s happening.

The barrier reef is bleaching, jellyfish are blooming and small islands are going under because the sea is rising.

But do you know WHY it's happening ?

That's the point I'm trying to get across, I don't doubt for a second that the climate is changing. I KNOW it's changing just like I know it's changed in the past and will continue to do into the future until the planet is no longer here. What I don't buy though is the fraud that is man made global warming/climate change when all the data which is not manipulated (by committees with a political agenda and moonbat hippies) says it isn't

97% agreed that anthro CO2 is an issue and has contributed to climate change in some way.

Very convincing if you park your brain at the door!

What exactly does that mean?

What percentage of scientist agree with chaos theory that the beat of a butterfly wing in Ohio can change the climate in Irkutsk? If it's a majority, or a vocal majority, can we begin a butterfly cull, or start a butterfly collectors tax credit system?

CO2 is an issue? What does that mean?

Come on, my breathing contributes to climate change in some way. Every aspect of the planet is interconnected.

The great global warming debate has become a smokescreen to divert attention from much more pressing and obvious environmental issues. CO2 gives the trendy greenies something to rant about whilst they continue to support the poisoning of the planet, our bodies and our minds through ignorant and self serving lifestyle choices.

Originally posted by Discotech

Originally posted by majestictwo
I can see what’s happening.

The barrier reef is bleaching, jellyfish are blooming and small islands are going under because the sea is rising.

But do you know WHY it's happening ?

That's the point I'm trying to get across, I don't doubt for a second that the climate is changing. I KNOW it's changing just like I know it's changed in the past and will continue to do into the future until the planet is no longer here. What I don't buy though is the fraud that is man made global warming/climate change when all the data which is not manipulated (by committees with a political agenda and moonbat hippies) says it isn't

CSIRO Snp

Sea level changes – Thermal Expansion Thermal expansion is one of the main contributors to long-term sea level change, as well as being part of regional and short-term changes. Water expands as it warms and shrinks as it cools. From 1961 to 2003, the upper 700 metres of the global oceans absorbed about 3.6 x 1021 Joules per year, increasing global mean sea level (GMSL) by about 22 millimetres. This is equivalent to contributing about 0.52 mm/year to GMSL, and also to an air-sea flux of 0.36 Watts per square metre over the ocean area considered (65°S to 65°N). This contribution to GMSL is about one third of the total GMSL trend (1.6 mm/year) over this period. From 1993 to 2003, the thermosteric contribution was estimated to be about 0.79 mm/year, about a quarter of the total GMSL trend of 3.3 mm/year over the same period.

Or if you prefer to plough through it yourself
link

reply to post by majestictwo

One of the facts that you quoted is the clue as to why global warming, if in fact it is STILL happening, is NOT caused by human activity. The southern and northern oceans are absorbing less CO2 because they're getting warmer and the reason they're getting warmer is the sun, not air temperature. EVen global warming supporters agree that the atmosphere gets warmed by heat radiating from the surface(regardless of whether its land or ocean) not the other way around. Higher CO2 emissions are a result of global warming, not the cause. The scientist who analyzed the ice core samples, and generated the data that was used for the graphs in Al Gore's movie Inconvenient Truth, said in his report that in EVERY single case where average temperatures and CO2 level trends changed direction from either up to down or from down to up, temperature ALWAYS changed direction first and CO2 levels ALWAYS followed later and the lag time in between was an average of 1100 YEARS and never less than 400 YEARS.

In other words, there were periods of at least 400 years when temperatures had already started to drop while CO2 was still rising. Therefore CO2 CANNOT possibly be the cause of global warming. It's the result.

What Al Gore conveniently ignored was the fact that the charts showed three previous spikes in both temperature and CO2 levels and in each case, there was NO runaway meltdown. The trends were reversed by natural forces and there is no reason to believe that those natural forces won't work again this time. Add to this the fact that average temperatures have dropped by 0.8 degrees C since January of 2007 and a case can be made that the trend has already changed direction.

Originally posted by RogerT

97% agreed that anthro CO2 is an issue and has contributed to climate change in some way.

Very convincing if you park your brain at the door!

Aye, it's a prequisite for a scientific career after a PhD...indeed, straight after viva TPTB ensure it is met.

CO2 is an issue? What does that mean?

It means that it does contribute to current climate change. So it is not something to ignore. Not negligible. Relevant. An issue in current climate change.

The great global warming debate has become a smokescreen to divert attention from much more pressing and obvious environmental issues. CO2 gives the trendy greenies something to rant about whilst they continue to support the poisoning of the planet, our bodies and our minds through ignorant and self serving lifestyle choices.

Can we not pay attention to more than one issue?

Do we have to choose between cleaning polluted lakes and rivers and reducing our effects on climate change? In fact, we appear to be doing more to save otters and voles than to reduce our impact on future climate.

I do like otters, though.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by majestictwo


So which side of the fence are you on ? I'm presuming you have your eyes open and actually read into things and are on the "it's a natural thing" fence judging from what you've presented in your posts ?

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Higher CO2 emissions are a result of global warming, not the cause.

So global warming is causing humans to burn fossil fuels at levels that can induce twice the yearly rise in atmospheric CO2.

Wyrd!

Discotech
That's funny because the laws of physics state otherwise, also let's not to forget to mention that as CO2 continue to rise, global temperatures are currently falling. Doesn't kind of fit with the whole "CO2 increases the temperatures on the planet" lie we're lead to believe.

Seeing you're either a scouser or a temp-scouser (hopefully not a blue!), I'll answer...

Laws of physics state that gases that absorb longwave radiation tend to be an important factor in the greenhouse effect. CO2 is IR-wobble-crazy.

For the second bit, that would be so important if CO2 was the only factor involved in climate.

Check this site


Full of interesting FACTS about the fallicies of Global Warming and the hoax that is man's contribution to it all

Aye, you can find all kinds of tripe on't net. In fact, it's easier to find the tripe than the good reliable stuff.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


There is absolutely no scientific correlation between a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny, even the laws of physics state that CO2 cannot affect the earth's climate the way alarmists like yourself are claiming.

Originally posted by RogerT

97% agreed that anthro CO2 is an issue and has contributed to climate change in some way.

Very convincing if you park your brain at the door!

What exactly does that mean?

What percentage of scientist agree with chaos theory that the beat of a butterfly wing in Ohio can change the climate in Irkutsk? If it's a majority, or a vocal majority, can we begin a butterfly cull, or start a butterfly collectors tax credit system?

CO2 is an issue? What does that mean?

Come on, my breathing contributes to climate change in some way. Every aspect of the planet is interconnected.

The great global warming debate has become a smokescreen to divert attention from much more pressing and obvious environmental issues. CO2 gives the trendy greenies something to rant about whilst they continue to support the poisoning of the planet, our bodies and our minds through ignorant and self serving lifestyle choices.

poisoning of the planet by man, will last just a few hundred years past the extinction of man. a mere speck of time in geology. and the earth will recover quite nicely. however, man cannot live breathing CO2 or methane, and with the population growth as it is, the ability of earth to replenish oxygen naturually is decreasing rapidly, hence the enormous increase in ppm of CO2. in other words, freezing and frying are not going to lead man to extinction.

Originally posted by Discotech
There is absolutely no scientific correlation between a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny, even the laws of physics state that CO2 cannot affect the earth's climate the way alarmists like yourself are claiming.

Heh, answer above.

You're about 150 years behind the science. Perhaps go back and start with Tyndall and Arrhenius.

Originally posted by jimmyx
poisoning of the planet by man, will last just a few hundred years past the extinction of man. a mere speck of time in geology. and the earth will recover quite nicely. however, man cannot live breathing CO2 or methane, and with the population growth as it is, the ability of earth to replenish oxygen naturually is decreasing rapidly, hence the enormous increase in ppm of CO2. in other words, freezing and frying are not going to lead man to extinction.

Again, I'm not saying one over the other. We can do both, we can attend to many issues.

The enormous increase in CO2 is nothing to do with 'replenishing' O2. It's the carbon we are burning - that's where the CO2 is coming from. However, that combustion does remove oxygen.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Discotech
There is absolutely no scientific correlation between a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny, even the laws of physics state that CO2 cannot affect the earth's climate the way alarmists like yourself are claiming.

Heh, answer above.

You're about 150 years behind the science. Perhaps go back and start with Tyndall and Arrhenius.

I do wonder where you & jimmy get your science from because it's absolutely wrong.....

To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.

To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

That's just a little taster from here www.middlebury.net... which I suggest you go read and open your eyes & mind, if that's at all possible...

Originally posted by Discotech
reply to post by majestictwo

 

So which side of the fence are you on ? I'm presuming you have your eyes open and actually read into things and are on the "it's a natural thing" fence judging from what you've presented in your posts ?

Thank you for asking you have been reading I see and good timing too as its real late here and I’ve just got to call it a day.

It is a good question because I am Mr Average and what the Mr and Mrs Average thinks in this world will probably follow through.

The fence answer probably can be found here and I look forward to checking your replies in the morning.

Many people have truly been mislead by a program called Swindle
Here are the answers to that.
CSIRO again


Swindle: Temperature actually fell between 1940 and 1980 but CO2 concentrations rose, so CO2 cannot cause warming.

Truth: Global average temperatures rose by about 0.3 degrees from 1910 to 1940, stayed approximately constant between 1940 and 1970, and have risen by a further 0.5 degrees since 1970. Three factors have combined to produce this pattern: fluctuations in solar radiation, volcanic activity, and greenhouse gases. Since 1970, the role of greenhouse gases has been dominant as their concentrations have risen sharply.


Swindle: The Medieval Warm Period (from 1000 to 1300 AD) was warmer than today.

Truth: Several recently published climate reconstructions show that there was indeed a warm period back then, but also that temperatures now are warmer than the highest during this period by between 0.5 and 1 degree.


Swindle: Climate models predict that warming occurs faster several kilometres aloft than at the surface, but observations show the reverse; hence the models are wrong.

Truth: Published studies have revealed calibration problems in upper-air temperature data from both balloons and satellites. When these were fixed, the data and the models agreed.



Swindle: Ice cores show that over the last 500,000 years, CO2 rises followed temperature rises by a few hundred years. Hence CO2 can't cause temperature increases.

Truth: The observation is correct but the conclusion is wrong. The observation merely shows that CO2 does not cause the first few hundred years of the warming events that terminate ice ages. This initial warming is due to subtle earth-orbital variations which are too weak to break down the major ice ages alone. The necessary extra leverage is supplied by powerful positive feedbacks including rising atmospheric CO2 as oceans warm, darkening surfaces as ice melts, and increasing water vapour in a warmer atmosphere. All these factors work together to produce glacial cycles. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities now provide a warming trigger different from the one that broke down past ice ages.


Swindle: The current warming is all due to natural variability caused by the sun.

Truth: Solar fluctuations in both gross energy output and cosmic radiation are nowhere near strong enough to cause the rapid warming since 1970, as confirmed by several recent studies including one published just last week.



Swindle: Volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activities; so does the ocean.

Truth: Volcanoes produce only about 1 per cent of current CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The oceans, together with vegetation on land, certainly release vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, but they also take up vast amounts. The current net effect is actually a removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by oceans and land vegetation, of about half of all fossil-fuel emissions each year.



Swindle: Climate models are useless.

Truth: Climate models are based on known laws of physics, and incorporate the effects of greenhouse gases together with many other processes. They do a good job of reproducing and explaining past climates, so their predictions of climate trends over coming decades are worthy of respect.

Why, then, do a handful of scientists torture the evidence to claim that human activities do not induce climate change?

The answer often quoted, that these scientists are in the pockets of oil companies, is probably inadequate (like the counterclaim that most climate scientists are in the pockets of neo-Marxists).

A more fundamental reason may be philosophical: those who attack the links between CO2 and human-induced climate change believe that the planetary machinery is too vast and intrinsically variable to be thrown off course by mere humankind, and that the earth's environment is in no way threatened by human exploitation.

Sound science now shows that this view is dangerously misplaced.

We have the power to alter the workings of the planet, and are already doing so through climate change. The leap we must make in just a few decades is to accept global stewardship of our shared environment.

The position taken in The Swindle is a dangerous dead weight as we endeavour to face this entirely new and critical challenge.

Originally posted by Discotech
I do wonder where you & jimmy get your science from because it's absolutely wrong.....

From the science-holding area!

Or scientific journals as we tend to call them.

That's just a little taster from here www.middlebury.net... which I suggest you go read and open your eyes & mind, if that's at all possible...

That quote was like the biggest argument from small numbers I've ever seen. Quite an achievement.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It does what it says on the tin. It's a basic feature of its physical nature. It is effectively transparent to shortwave radiation, it absorbs longwave radiation.

Incoming radiation is predominately shortwave, outgoing is longwave. Hinder the outgoing radiation to space, and you alter radiative balance. Alter radiative balance in this way, and you get a climate forcing that adds energy to the system.

Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo and Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

For the post below:



2008 will not be the coldest for 100 years. If you think otherwise, I have a spare £50 for a wager. I'll even wager the same £50 that it won't be the coldest for the last 20.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by majestictwo


Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, no matter how many ignorant scientists claim it to be.

Explain why we are now seeing a cooling period instead of warming. For the past 5 years the temp has been dropping, 08 will be the coldest on record in the last 100 years.

Did you know that bacteria produce c02 more than anything else on earth. Do you know when they start to produce more? After the temp warms up. the key word is after. Humans are so insignificant on this planet, we are nothing compared to bacteria.