Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

Do you believe man is the major contributer to climate change?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 48.2%
  • No

    Votes: 57 51.8%

Climate Change

202K views 4K replies 119 participants last post by  grumpyone 
#1 ·
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

They forgot to mention that the world hasn't warmed in the last 17 years.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
 
#2 ·
I knew this all along. Never needed any goddam 'scientist' trying to bullsh*t me otherwise.

Simple observation of history and the records of past times were enough for me. So, sometimes it rains and sometimes it snows, even gets hot now and then. It's the weather. Happens all the time.

I haven't forgotten the 'Global Warming' conference in Sweden either. Worst Winter I living memory, even the taxi drivers were giving the delegates rings about the 'warming.' So what did they do? They changed the spiel from 'warming' to 'climate change ... damned frauds.

They can shove their carbon tax. Also, stop giving 'grants' for 'research' into climate change, then all the BS will stop.

I don't need the NBN either, or Gonski, or Rolls-Royces for cripples. (Just added them b'cos it's Monday and raining and I'm feeling bastardly.)
 
#3 ·
Backpedalling by who? The Australian and The Daily Mail have always rubbished AGW reports.

Have you looked at the source data that these tabloids are basing their claims on, Ray? It's easy to find, but let me help you:

The recent pause in warming - Met Office

From that page:

The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions:

What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period?
What are the potential drivers of the current pause?
How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate?

The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works.

The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role.

The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.


Links to each of the three papers are below (links disabled as they are for pdf docs).

Observing changes in the climate system Paper 1: Observing changes in the climate system (PDF, 2 MB)

Recent pause in global warming Paper 2: Recent pause in global warming (PDF, 1 MB)

Implications for projections Paper 3: Implications for projections (PDF, 663 kB)

Last Updated: 13 August 2013
 
  • Like
Reactions: dom14 and AngryBird
#4 ·
Here's another one for you:

expert reaction to story that Met Office data shows global warming has stopped | Science Media Centre

Dr Richard Allan, Reader in Climate Science at the University of Reading, said:

“Global warming is not ‘at a standstill’ but does seem to have slowed down since 2000 in comparison to the rapid warming of the world since the 1970s.

“In fact, consistent with rising greenhouse gases, heat is continuing to build up beneath the ocean surface:

Warming over the last decade hidden below ocean surface

“This indicates that changes in ocean circulation are in part responsible for the recent slower rate of surface warming. The way the ocean distributes the extra energy trapped by rising greenhouse gases is critical in determining the new Met Office forecasts of global surface temperature over the coming decade and is an area of active research.

“These decadal forecasts are very much experimental – they are at the cutting edge of the science and are technically very challenging. The Met Office are being open and transparent by making the forecasts available to allow a proper validation to occur. The Met Office is one of about 10 groups performing these type of forecasts worldwide and all predict a warming over the coming decade.

“Nothing in their data leads me to think that global warming due to human influence has stopped, or is irrelevant. It hasn’t, and it isn’t.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: AngryBird
#5 ·
Prof Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at University College London, said:

“I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’! Global mean temperatures – whether measured or predicted – are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet and the changes that an energy imbalance will drive in the climate system – as well as the consequences for humans.

“90% of the energy imbalance enters the ocean and is not visible to the global mean surface temperature value. The continuing rise in sea level demonstrates ongoing energy accumulation in the ocean (as well as a contribution from melting land ice).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dom14 and AngryBird
#6 ·
Clearly there is a yawning chasm between 'science' and 'opinion'... and between the ears of climate change deniers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dom14
#8 ·
If you can't believe the IPCC, who can you believe?:D
 
#10 ·
Well, clearly you believe Tony "Climate change is crap" Abbott. He goes out in the sun regularly, so surely he knows what he's talking about?

I am an expert on Vegemite; I put it on toast every second day or so.
 
#11 ·
Yes, of course. Five stable periods in 40 years. Pyrrihic victory to the climate change denial team! And can someone please make that nasty red line go away, it's giving me wind :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dom14
#12 ·
Sorry guys, but this revision is directly from the Climate Gods of the IPCC. You're now disputing those wise sages who the world has been following for decades. Enjoy another failure of the Left. :mrgreen:
 
#13 ·
“Nothing in their data leads me to think that global warming due to human influence has stopped, or is irrelevant. It hasn’t, and it isn’t.”
__________________
'Human influence' is one of the things I find hard to agree with. For instance, some warming has been detected on Jupiter (900 million kilometres away) ... human influence? Doubt it.

Here is (yet) another view. Confusing isn't it Dutchy?

DailyTech - Global Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune
 
#14 ·
No Ray, what we are doing is clearly showing the difference between science and opinion.

The IPCC released data showing updates relative to predictions. The model is adjusted. The trend continues to show increasing overall temperature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FNoMore and dom14
#15 ·
And downgrading of the predictions keeps on downgrading. They'd be better off reading tea leaves or chicken bones. But there's no government funding in that. :D
 
#16 ·
Ray, you do understand that if the current mean average temp was 20 degrees, the prediction was 30 degrees in x years, and a revision lowered that prediction to 25 degrees in x years - the trend would still be upwards? It really doesn't seem that hard to grasp...
 
  • Like
Reactions: FNoMore
#17 ·
So you firmly believe that we need:

- a carbon tax
- taxpayer subsidy of solar and wind power
- shutdown of coal fired power stations
- no nuclear
- no new hydro-electric power
- fuel to be included in the carbon tax
- and whatever else can be devised
- more taxpayer money spent on global warming scientists
- more taxpayer money spent on the ARC to hand out to artists examining the effects of climate change etc
- all building permits for waterfront housing to be banned etc

If you believe that the world is warming catastrophically, then you must believe that all of the above is absolutely essential.
 
#24 ·
Yep, you cant see anything on that, but its too localised to expect a whole lot, and the scale is not real conducive to seeing fractions of a degree in temperature changes. Have a look at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ir1w3OrR4U

Its really quite amazing to watch oceanic currents let alone anything else.

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX9nHyMP4L0 is a pretty cool one too. I don't expect you to "see" any difference on it, just a cool animation ;)

Edit: Sorry one more too ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNHRLgjLjA
 
#26 ·
No, I'm a sceptic when it comes to that, but what I'm pointing out here, and previously, is that all the predictions have effectively been wrong and downward amendment needed. The simple fact is that the IPCC started from a platform warning about catastrophic global warming and every year it just gets watered (pun intended) down.

The debate is not about minor fluctuations that happen throughout history, but about an escalating spiral based flawed computer predictions and the subsequent panic that has followed. The economic waste that has followed from this is criminal.

Some more comment (from sceptics this time): PR Wars: IPCC fights for relevance, halves warming, claims to be 95% certain of something vaguer « JoNova.
 
#33 ·
No, I'm a sceptic when it comes to that, but what I'm pointing out here, and previously, is that all the predictions have effectively been wrong and downward amendment needed. The simple fact is that the IPCC started from a platform warning about catastrophic global warming and every year it just gets watered (pun intended) down.
Yes what you say about the model being adjusted is correct. But clearly it is a very complex business, and climate modelling is like any science - a combination of data, history, predictions and guesswork.

From where I sit, it is better to err on the cautious side, and end up with a happier outcome, than to underestimate the risk and totally lose any control of the situation we have, however illusory that control might be.

What is the justification for skeptics attempting to destroy the IPCC's credibility simply because the IPCC are displaying good scientific principles? The skeptics love to whinge about scientists having an agenda for promoting AGW, but when the scientific community is transparent and open regarding their findings - as in this case - the skeptics barely pause to draw breath in their rush to trash the research.

Brains on one side, stupid on the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 226554
#29 ·
I am really trying to understand this global warming concept. I've read all the links and done a little research.

It does seem as if temperatures are going up. The increases are disputed but there is movement.

What interests me most is that the same thing is happening to all the planets in our solar system yet only on Earth is it being attributed to humans. I think this is odd, to say the least, I know humans are wonderful creatures but in this case I doubt whether they have anything to do with it at all. Unless of course, what we do here reaches millions of miles into space.
 
#31 ·
I am really trying to understand this global warming concept. I've read all the links and done a little research.

It does seem as if temperatures are going up. The increases are disputed but there is movement.

What interests me most is that the same thing is happening to all the planets in our solar system yet only on Earth is it being attributed to humans. I think this is odd, to say the least, I know humans are wonderful creatures but in this case I doubt whether they have anything to do with it at all. Unless of course, what we do here reaches millions of miles into space.
Whether we have any influence on the climate at all hasn't been proven conclusively (this is quite different to general pollution over which we have significant control). And as pointed out in one of my links, the IPCC states that we are responsible for just half of the warming that was occurring and has now stopped (for the last 17 years). They really don't know, but it is a lucrative cash cow of an industry.

On the other hand, even if we were responsible for half the warming (that occurred up until 17 years ago), there is nothing that we can do that will have any material effect to reduce or stop this, without eliminating the vast majority of the human population (now there's an opportunity for all the planet savers to step forward). I would like to see anyone try and stop China and India from moving forward with their industrialisation and see where they end up.

Even Bjorn Lomborg, who is a bit of an apologist for the IPCC, is a realist in that he doesn't believe that carbon taxes, windmills, electric cars etc are worth pursuing. His view is that we should adapt, as adapting is what humans are best at doing. Now what if some of the predictions about global cooling start to look hot (pun intended)? What are we going to do? Start pouring money into CO2 producing industries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thrasher
#30 ·
That there is climate change is irrefutable, sea temps are rising, mean atmosphere temps are rising.

However, this has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. Just as we will have another ice age at some time.

Is it the current issue man made, well we are certainly not helping and we do need to clean up out act, and fast. However, in Australia (BL&G), we already do this while the rest of the world just pumps out more chit.

The Carbon Tax or Emission Trading Scheme is going to do squat. We need incentives for those who are the heavy polluters to reduce their out put, not simply place a monetary impost on them that can be passed on directly to the consumer.

Those third world countries (and some not so 3rd) who are not playing the game. No more foreign aid or any other consideration (free trade) should be given till they at least impose minimum standards on engine emission etc.
 
#32 ·
My conspiracy theory is.............., all the governments know that there is a limited supply of fossil fuels beit coal or oil, the world economy revolves around oil and life as we know it would stop if/when we run out of oil, we currently do not have anything to replace oil and there is not enough incentive to find an affordable replacement fuel, there is some progress in some areas but I assume the rate of progress is not sufficient enough , soooo i think to speed up the rate of progress for finding alternate fuel sources the world governments have decided to introduce a carbon tax to make it more expensive to use fossil fuels and further drive the need for an alternate cheap fuel source......
 
#35 ·
I think governments are way behind the curve when it comes to working out how we're going to live with the impacts of our increased rate of climate change. That's what worries me. Even if we started calling it increased ocean temperatures or increased ocean acidification more widely we could help ourselves recognise whats happening. Carbon taxes and emission trading schemes are there to allow businesses ( mostly the large transnational financial institutions ) turn a profit whilst letting governments look like they're doing something. We've done nothing to address the mass migration that is likely, nor the potential for food and water shortages. The environment, well sadly we haven't done much for that either.

I'd be much happier if the new govt just came out and said whilst they know its happening they don't know what to do about it. I think privately they all know that the public position of maintaining determined ignorance is far worse.

And science readjusting findings based on new measurements and understandings ? That's nothing new, why are we still surprised by that? Shouldn't we expect it ? We've been learning more and understanding more and re-evaluting what we know since we developed the capacity to store information.

And vive le debate !
 
Top