Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Erratic weather, shifted seasons - is this all down to global warming?

Announcements Posted on
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    Is this all down to global warming?
    No, it is climate change.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shezshez)
    No - you've just linked a Wikipedia site, if it was disproven then all the top scientists would agree.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ural_processes

    Clearly some don't - it's still up for debate.
    :facepalm: This is like the evolution thread all over again. No not all scientist will approve, because some so called "scientists" like to be different. However nothing is ever 100% proven anyway because that is physically impossible due to the fact that our tools of measurement are flawed. However just because our tools of measurements are flawed does not mean we should not use them to advance scientific discovery. Logic would suggest that if we cannot measure to an accuracy of 100% then we must use the next best tools available and draw a conclusion from that. So no it has never been 100% proven, it will never be 100% proven. But when the majority of scientists (not journalists) that have spent years studying and researching such phenomenon and have collectively came to a conclusion that global warming is happening, then reason and logic would suggest they are right considering these are the people that know most out of anyone (including journalists) about the subject. Despite the fact that a select few studies have suggested otherwise.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shezshez)
    No - you've just linked a Wikipedia site, if it was disproven then all the top scientists would agree.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ural_processes

    Clearly some don't - it's still up for debate.
    Everything in science is still up for debate. There are people who don't accept plate tectonic theory in scientific circles.

    The interesting thing I notice is that you state global warming is a myth then cite scientists who agree it is happening but not with the cause as evidence that it isn't happening. There really is not any debate in scientific circles about whether global warming is happening or not. It is and those who deny it are akin to those who believe the earth is flat as far as I am concerned.

    Clearly, people like yourself will never be able to accept something that you know so little about but I find it quite interesting nonetheless that anybody could say the atmosphere and the ocean hasn't warmed since the beginning of the industrial revolution with a straight face.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So we were in an ice age, the Earth warmed without humans that was global warming? The earth has always gone through periods of warming and cooling, I'd suggest the effect of greenhouse gases is less than what is portrayed in the popular media.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Compared with the days of my youth when I used to spend long summer days in the cornfields...(what child does this today?) The weather has certainly changed over the years. I think that the last long summer I can remember well was when I was at High School, and the summer days lasted till the end of September and well into October. Now, when September comes it is so cold and bitter, and we seem to only get a week or two of sunny days throughout the whole year now.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shezshez)
    So we were in an ice age, the Earth warmed without humans that was global warming? The earth has always gone through periods of warming and cooling, I'd suggest the effect of greenhouse gases is less than what is portrayed in the popular media.

    Yes it was ****ing global warming. You have just disproved your own point. You actively acknowledge global warming has happened in the past yet claim global warming isn't happening at the moment!

    And that was exactly my point earlier! There is no doubt that global warming is happening, the debate surrounds the cause of global warming. Some say it's man made some say it's natural, but everyone that is debating (apart from those that know **** all about it) agree global warming is happening as we speak! I explained this to you like 3 or 4 posts ago!

    EDIT: it actually seems you don't understand what the term 'global warming' means!
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'd be more worried about it being a sign of the impending apocalypse personally, not global warming.
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    It could be down to climate change, which is natural, since was a lot colder during the Ice Age and Victorian Era (seeing as the Themes froze during that age) but it was a lot warmer when the Romans were about (seeing as wine was grown in the UK). You also have natural occurrences like El Nino and La Nina which cause change in climate.

    However, since the climate has changed so much throughout history, you can't say it's down to human induced global warming. The media is always saying that the weather has been breaking records, etc, but that's only because the records don't go back that far.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    It could be down to climate change, which is natural, since was a lot colder during the Ice Age and Victorian Era (seeing as the Themes froze during that age) but it was a lot warmer when the Romans were about (seeing as wine was grown in the UK). You also have natural occurrences like El Nino and La Nina which cause change in climate.
    No Man, you made a reasonable effort but there are a couple of misconceptions which need challenging.

    The fact that is was cooler or warmer or wetter or whatever before doesn't imply anything about the cause whatsoever. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest or ignorant.

    Further, your point about ENSO events isn't strictly true. Oceanic oscillations are a form of internal variability of the climate system. To simplify it almost too far, it is simply a mechanism for transferring heat already stored in the system between the atmosphere and the ocean. In and of itself it doesn't cause changes in climate on decadal timescales, rather the oscillations react if you like to the shift in climate caused by other things.
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    No Man, you made a reasonable effort but there are a couple of misconceptions which need challenging.

    The fact that is was cooler or warmer or wetter or whatever before doesn't imply anything about the cause whatsoever. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest or ignorant.

    Further, your point about ENSO events isn't strictly true. Oceanic oscillations are a form of internal variability of the climate system. To simplify it almost too far, it is simply a mechanism for transferring heat already stored in the system between the atmosphere and the ocean. In and of itself it doesn't cause changes in climate on decadal timescales, rather the oscillations react if you like to the shift in climate caused by other things.
    My point is that the records don't go back far enough for people to be raving about humans recently changing the climate, since the climate has changed regularly in history.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    My point is that the records don't go back far enough for people to be raving about humans recently changing the climate, since the climate has changed regularly in history.
    I disagree somewhat on that point and I think your argument would carry a lot more weight if you were able to get some rather basic points right. A lot of people fall back on the "it has changed before" argument without really thinking about what it tells us.

    Known natural forcings alone cannot account for what we have observed since the industrial revolution. That isn't to say natural forcings don't have a significant impact because they do (they can cancel out or exacerbate anthropogenic forcings) but there has to be something else to account for what we see and anthropogenic forcings fit the puzzle very well as it were.

    What past changes in climate can tell us is that what we are doing now is very likely to have an impact on the system rather than the other way around. Events that have resulted in increased amounts of carbon dioxide (and/or other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere have lead to significant shifts in the climate before and there isn't really anything to suggest that it doesn't play a significant role today. It is a little ironic that the evidence you use to support your point of veiw actually supports quite the opposite but this seems to be pretty common unfortunately.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Don't use the term 'Global Warming'.

    There has in fact been no warming for quite a few years. A fact which has been deliberately understated by many.

    Which is why climate campaigners have switched from using 'Global Warming' to the much more wishy-washy term 'Climate Change'.

    No one is denying that the climate is changing. After all, the earth's climate has been changing one way or another for billions of years.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Don't use the term 'Global Warming'.

    There has in fact been no warming for quite a few years. A fact which has been deliberately understated by many.

    Which is why climate campaigners have switched from using 'Global Warming' to the much more wishy-washy term 'Climate Change'.

    No one is denying that the climate is changing. After all, the earth's climate has been changing one way or another for billions of years.
    You only need to understand what global warming actually is to realise that you are talking a load of nonsense. The total heat content of the earth is still increasing which is deliberately ignored (or just not known) by people like yourself. If you look at surface temperature you only get half the picture, you need to look at the ocean as well. I suspect you don't mention that because it proves you wrong but then again maybe you just didn't know any of that.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    You only need to understand what global warming actually is to realise that you are talking a load of nonsense. The total heat content of the earth is still increasing which is deliberately ignored (or just not known) by people like yourself. If you look at surface temperature you only get half the picture, you need to look at the ocean as well. I suspect you don't mention that because it proves you wrong but then again maybe you just didn't know any of that.
    Where did I mention I was relying purely on surface temperature in my post? I didn't.

    I don't have the time or inclination to spend all day stating why it's 'climate change' not 'global warming', but you're welcome to provide proof of why you believe otherwise.

    You might also want to work a little bit on tone. If you go onto the street and express an opinion, and someone poses a counter opinion, you then go on to tell them that 'they are talking a load of nonsense' and such and such is 'deliberately ignored by people like yourself.... but then again, maybe you just didn't know any of that' is often likely to be met with a response that doesn't include debating the finer points of global warming climate change. Now I know this is just the internet, but perhaps that's just the way 'you people' get your kicks.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Where did I mention I was relying purely on surface temperature in my post? I didn't.

    I don't have the time or inclination to spend all day stating why it's 'climate change' not 'global warming', but you're welcome to provide proof of why you believe otherwise.

    You might also want to work a little bit on tone. If you go onto the street and express an opinion, and someone poses a counter opinion, you then go on to tell them that 'they are talking a load of nonsense' and such and such is 'deliberately ignored by people like yourself.... but then again, maybe you just didn't know any of that' is often likely to be met with a response that doesn't include debating the finer points of global warming climate change. Now I know this is just the internet, but perhaps that's just the way 'you people' get your kicks.
    Global warming and climate change are both perfectly accurate terms but then again what the hell do I know, I only study this. What is it that you have studied out of interest?

    I've suggested exactly why global warming is still occuring above (if you want to read a study on ocean heating then have a look at this, I will link you to plenty more if you are interested in learning something). The fact that you think it isn't still occuring suggests to me that you don't really know what global warming actually is. You haven't stated why you don't think it is happening at all but if I had to guess you'd just point at the atmospheric temperature and completely ignore the ocean like everybody else who makes such a claim. Truth is, global warming is still happening, whether you agree or not.

    As for your concern about my tone, it is duly noted and ignored.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    Global warming and climate change are both perfectly accurate terms but then again what the hell do I know, I only study this. What is it that you have studied out of interest?

    I've suggested exactly why global warming is still occuring above (if you want to read a study on ocean heating then have a look at this, I will link you to plenty more if you are interested in learning something). The fact that you think it isn't still occuring suggests to me that you don't really know what global warming actually is. You haven't stated why you don't think it is happening at all but if I had to guess you'd just point at the atmospheric temperature and completely ignore the ocean like everybody else who makes such a claim. Truth is, global warming is still happening, whether you agree or not.

    As for your concern about my tone, it is duly noted and ignored.
    "Here we report improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 m and 700 m of the ocean for 1950–2003, using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage5, 6, 7 and applying recent corrections8 to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature"

    Estimates. In addition, you completely fail to address my point that there has been "no warming for quite a few years". This is in fact, 2012.

    Please try harder.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    "Here we report improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 m and 700 m of the ocean for 1950–2003, using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage5, 6, 7 and applying recent corrections8 to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature"

    Estimates. In addition, you completely fail to address my point that there has been "no warming for quite a few years". This is in fact, 2012.

    Please try harder.
    You can only suggest global warming has stopped when the atmosphere and oceans have stopped warming. This hasn't happened so how can you suggest it has stopped?

    You really do not have a clue what global warming is quite clearly. I study this day in, day out. You won't put your money where your mouth is and provide any evidenec to back up your claim that the oceans and atmosphere have both stopped warming which is very telling I think.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    You can only suggest global warming has stopped when the atmosphere and oceans have stopped warming. This hasn't happened so how can you suggest it has stopped?

    You really do not have a clue what global warming is quite clearly. I study this day in, day out. You won't put your money where your mouth is and provide any evidenec to back up your claim that the oceans and atmosphere have both stopped warming which is very telling I think.
    You go on to state that you are somehow more qualified to comment on global warming because you study this day in-day out.

    Hallelujah. The answer to the question that scientists have been arguing for years - is global warming real? Well, thanks to one no-name nobody Scottish student on TSR, have the definitive answer. And how do we know? "Because I study this day in, day out.

    Isn't it amazing how the watermelons ridicule anything they disagree with?

    This occurs even in the face of their flawed models failing to predict reality as the shorter range meteorological models have also done recently.

    The 'global warming' crowd seem incapable of accepting that the Sun is the primary heat source and solar changes and cycles have great influence on our climate. All the figures I have seen seem to show global average temperature having a close cyclical relationship with solar activity.

    From the GISS data, the CO2 concentration levels do not appear to drive the climate variability of the last century or the past 10 years.

    It takes a leap of faith and some rather dubious statistical analysis to 'knock the square peg into the round hole' and make the irregular and erratic pattern of temperature variability correlate meaningfully with the smooth and regular rise in CO2 concentrations in the 20th century.

    So go on, indulge me. You say there has been an increase in global average temperature since 1998, so tell me - how much has it risen by?

    The raw data show the natural fall in 1998 after El Nino and no warming since. There appears to be a minor decline but a more pronounced decline could have been smoothed out by the manipulations referred to as Climategate.

    I suppose you believe it's all down to CO2 as well.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You go on to state that you are somehow more qualified to comment on global warming because you study this day in-day out.

    Hallelujah. The answer to the question that scientists have been arguing for years - is global warming real? Well, thanks to one no-name nobody Scottish student on TSR, have the definitive answer. And how do we know? "Because I study this day in, day out.

    Isn't it amazing how the watermelons ridicule anything they disagree with?
    I wouldn't say I'm more qualified but considering you don't know what global warming is and can't produce one peer reviewed paper to back up your claim I don't think you are quite as well informed as you think you are.

    Climate scientists know global warming is real, that much really should be something everybody can agree on. Sadly, it seems that those who have no background (or very little) in climate science think they know better than climate scientists.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    This occurs even in the face of their flawed models failing to predict reality as the shorter range meteorological models have also done recently.
    More work definitely needs to be done on improving the models, that much is certain. Far too many of them have underestimated the observed warming but models are getting better and better with each passing year.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The 'global warming' crowd seem incapable of accepting that the Sun is the primary heat source and solar changes and cycles have great influence on our climate. All the figures I have seen seem to show global average temperature having a close cyclical relationship with solar activity.
    I don't think any serious climate scientist would ignore the sun, you only need to look at the vast amounts of research on the sun to realise that. Solar activity alone cannot account for the long term trend though which is the important part. If you are basing your whole interpretation of climate science on a few graphs I would suggest you aren't going to learn very much.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    From the GISS data, the CO2 concentration levels do not appear to drive the climate variability of the last century or the past 10 years.

    It takes a leap of faith and some rather dubious statistical analysis to 'knock the square peg into the round hole' and make the irregular and erratic pattern of temperature variability correlate meaningfully with the smooth and regular rise in CO2 concentrations in the 20th century.
    That would assume that carbon dioxide is the only thing driving warming, which we can rule out straight away. The climate reacts to all sorts of forcings but without the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions we simply cannot account for what we have observed.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    So go on, indulge me. You say there has been an increase in global average temperature since 1998, so tell me - how much has it risen by?
    You have yet to demonstrate that there isn't an energy imbalance (because you simply cannot) but once you do that I will be happy to show you the energy is still accumulating in the ocean and atmosphere even if the surface temperature (which is only a small part of the puzzle) has been pretty flat.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The raw data show the natural fall in 1998 after El Nino and no warming since. There appears to be a minor decline but a more pronounced decline could have been smoothed out by the manipulations referred to as Climategate.
    Yeah, global conspiracy, yawn yawn.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I suppose you believe it's all down to CO2 as well.
    A rather laughable suggestion.

    You are consistently ignoring the rather inconvenient point about oceans (which have continued to accumulate energy since 1998) and instead focussing on a small part of the puzzle (surface temperature). You are ignoring this because it disproves your notion that global warming has stopped. That is intellectually dishonest. That might work with other people who are ignorant about the climate but I can see through your pretty piss poor attempt at an argument (as I'm sure anybody with an education on the subject could).
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    I wouldn't say I'm more qualified but considering you don't know what global warming is and can't produce one peer reviewed paper to back up your claim I don't think you are quite as well informed as you think you are.

    Climate scientists know global warming is real, that much really should be something everybody can agree on. Sadly, it seems that those who have no background (or very little) in climate science think they know better than climate scientists.
    Climate Research is done by people who regard themselves as mighty intellects who do research that no mortal can understand. This effort is led by hugely distinguished members of the scientific establishment. Groupthink prevails. The internal perception is that the practioners of this particular art are so brilliant that they can do anything in any subject better than anyone else.

    They are of course true scientists and avoid being scrutinised at all costs. Anyone who is critical is immediately dismissed as not being a climate scientist.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    More work definitely needs to be done on improving the models, that much is certain. Far too many of them have underestimated the observed warming but models are getting better and better with each passing year.
    And every time the model fails to predict reality, they come up with a new one that fails to predict reality.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    I don't think any serious climate scientist would ignore the sun, you only need to look at the vast amounts of research on the sun to realise that. Solar activity alone cannot account for the long term trend though which is the important part. If you are basing your whole interpretation of climate science on a few graphs I would suggest you aren't going to learn very much.
    All I'm asking you to do is post the evidence of recent warming in the past few years...

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    That would assume that carbon dioxide is the only thing driving warming, which we can rule out straight away. The climate reacts to all sorts of forcings but without the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions we simply cannot account for what we have observed.
    "Forcing" is a false parameter used in climate models to produce the required results.

    As science is well aware that CO2 alone cannot cause dangerous warming, a forcing parameter had to be introduced.

    Why? because if CO2 continues to rise at it's current rate of 2 parts per million each year, in fifty years it may cause a temperature increase of 0.6C, in 100 years it may reach 588ppmv and temperature may increase by 1.2C according to the Arrhenius supposition relating 0.6C of observed warming directly to a 100ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, (No it won't as the logarithmic properties of CO2 prohibit any such rise), but even if it did, still not a lot to worry about. So at this point reality goes out the window and a hypothesis is established.

    (Remember also that there are only 388 molecules of CO2 for every million parts of atmosphere, so nomatter how one looks at the data, the outgoing long wave radiated photon has only a 388 in one million chance of being absorbed by a CO2 molecule).

    The hypothesis says that CO2 is warmed by Long Wave radiation leaving the earth's surface and in turn returns some of this energy (heat) back to the surface causing yet more warming (the Greenhouse Effect). However as CO2 has to all intents and purposes reached it's maximum in it's ability to absorb radiation, any further increase in CO2 levels could only cause temperatures to increase by a few 10ths of 1C over the long term.

    The forcing parameter is used in the models to show an interaction with other GHG's mainly water vapour, to give a doubling of the Greenhouse Effect. Without this "forcing" CO2 could have no effect whatsoever on temperatures.

    Many reports show that these forcing "feedbacks" used in the models are complete nonsense, fine if you want to show warming, but bear no resemblance to reality.

    Lindzen & Choi (2009) proves the effect of CO2 on temperature is trivial, the radiation escaping from the Earth to space as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is NOT being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere to cause warming to anything like the extent that the models predict.

    How's that for real science?

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    You have yet to demonstrate that there isn't an energy imbalance (because you simply cannot) but once you do that I will be happy to show you the energy is still accumulating in the ocean and atmosphere even if the surface temperature (which is only a small part of the puzzle) has been pretty flat.
    You have yet to contradict the bit that you objected to in my post, the bit about recent warming. You could so easily do so by posting the figures.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    You are consistently ignoring the rather inconvenient point about oceans (which have continued to accumulate energy since 1998) and instead focussing on a small part of the puzzle (surface temperature). You are ignoring this because it disproves your notion that global warming has stopped. That is intellectually dishonest. That might work with other people who are ignorant about the climate but I can see through your pretty piss poor attempt at an argument (as I'm sure anybody with an education on the subject could).
    I do not agree with the claimed 'consensus' - that being that climate change is driven by anthropogenic CO2, but for the purposes of this thread, my argument is simply thus - there has been no recent warming in recent years, and that it stopped some time ago. If you disagree, post the figures.

    In fact, the whole reason why you cannot (or will not) do so is it will destroy a central tenet of the man made climate change theory. That being - an increase in CO2 results in warming, and since we have had an increase in CO2, there must have been warming.

    Saying that CO2 causes global warming is akin to saying that lung cancer causes smoking.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 29, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.