Climate change...accurate assessment or guesswork...?

It is guess work. It is ignorance parading as genius. It is fools leading fools. It is socialists fantasizing that they have finally put the nail in the fossil fuel coffin. You will find all sorts of evidence for this. Look at some of Trevor's previous answers. It is dripping with hatred of Exxon Mobil. The same can be said of other alarmists as well.

Dana suggested earlier today that CO2 was 100 per cent responsible for the rise in temperature in the last 40 years. You could hardly find a more asinine statement. It has been warming for about 300 years. Certainly the first 260 years of that 300 were not due to man. Man has probably added to some of that rise in the last 40 years but we don't know how much. Suggestions that we do are unscientific political grandstanding and they come from the particularly harmful and ruinous politics.

When Gorbachev and socialism were thrown on the ash heaps of history, they resurrected themselves in the green movement. Suggestions that these anti-capitalists represent science is reprehensible to me and I tend to get a little emotional and irritated at the suggestion (not that you made it).

You’ve basically answered your own question. If your doctor diagnoses you with a terminal condition then he knows you will die but can’t say when, you could seek 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinions and all the doctors will confirm what’s wrong and what will ultimately happen but you’ll still end up with a range of dates.

What you seem to be implying is that because scientists can’t be precise then they shouldn’t be trusted. Presumably therefore you’d also dismiss the diagnoses of the all various doctors.

There are too many variables within the climatic systems to be precise, as we learn more the range is narrowing. In respect of temperatures for example, about 90% of predictions put the most likely temp increase by the year 2100 at between 2.5°C and 3.5°C but in order to accommodate uncertainties a range of between 1°C and 5°C would most likely be given.

We have no idea either what adaptation strategies humans will adopt, this is perhaps the single biggest factor that will affect the climate in the next 100 years. If we do nothing then temps are going to rise significantly more than if we implement effective greenhouse gas reduction schemes.

Without a time machine we can’t assign values to the human influence and therefore there are significant inhernet uncertainties.

- - - - - - -

EDIT: TO JIM.

24th occasion now. Where have I ever said that I have a hatred of Exxon – never. Show me the evidence!

Of course, that doesn’t stop you inventing your own version of events and attributing totally fallacious attributes to people. It’s appears quite obvious that you can’t handle the truth so invent your own as you go along.

It’s s documented fact that Exxon and other companies paid scientists to produce reports that discredited the theory of global warming. It’s a legal requirement that these companies produce annual accounts and reports. I know it’s highly inconvenient for the deniers but these are the facts of the matter.

Clearly you have a problem with anyone and everyone that doesn’t share your beliefs and this manifests itself through your constant, unsubstantiated, irrelevant and erroneous ad-hominem attacks on people. This does nothing to further your cause and only serves to demonstrate your alarming inability to construct a rational argument. It’s precisely the same psychological technique that kids use in a schoolyard.

- - - - - - - - -

COMMENT TO OLD MAN MTN:

Your argument may sound convincing to those with little scientific comprehension but your entire argument is based on specific heat capacities. I’d suggest you recalculate your figures and take into account the infrared spectral absorption bands of the greenhouse gases.

the actually standards must be that anybody who buys 32ml petrol isn't damaging. The making plans fee means that spending Rs 5.5 on cereals in step with day is powerful sufficient to maintain human beings healthful. in addition, a daily spend of Rs a million.02 on pulses, Rs 2.33 on milk and Rs a million.55 on fit for human intake oil must be sufficient to grant sufficient foodstuff and keep human beings above the poverty line without the will of backed rations from the government. It extra means that basically Rs a million.ninety 5 on vegetables an afternoon may be sufficient. somewhat extra, and one might finally end up outdoors the social protection internet. human beings must be spending under 40 4 paise on culmination, 70 paise on sugar, seventy 8 paise on salt and spices and yet another Rs a million.fifty one on different ingredients in step with day to qualify for the BPL checklist and for subsidy under diverse government schemes. someone using extra advantageous than Rs 3.seventy 5 in step with day on gasoline to run the kitchen is doing properly as in step with those figures. forget with regard to the gasoline value hike and sky-rocketing rents, if all and sundry living in the city is spending over Rs 40 9.10 a month on lease and conveyance, she or he ought to omit out on the BPL tag.

There are genetic medical conditions where, if their parent has the disease, there is a certain chance that they will get this disease as well. The thing is, they are saying there is going to be warming. How much warming is dependent on various feedbacks and such. They do realize that man has an impact on the environment.

Edit: And Old Man seems to have debunked the entire greenhouse effect. Who knew that the greenhouse effect actually cooled the Earth rather than warmed it. And with highschool science no less!

The range of possible temperature changes are based on different emissions scenarios. The lower end is based on a scenario where we dramatically decrease anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The higher end is if we continue in a business as usual, high emissions scenario.

A more accurate analogy is if your doctor tells you that if you keep smoking you'll only live 10 years, if you quit smoking you'll live 50 years. You're criticizing your doctor for giving you a large range (10-50 years) of possible lifespans. Your criticism is completely unwarranted because the range is based on different scenarios, not one scenario.

In other words, your assumption that the large range of IPCC temperature projections is based on model uncertainties is wrong. It's mainly based on input (CO2 emissions scenarios) uncertainties. As we all know, CO2 is driving global warming, but we can't look into the future and see how our CO2 emissions will change. So the IPCC creates these scenarios - if CO2 emissions change by 'x', the global temperature will change by 'y' (and sea level will rise by 'z'). See the link below for more details.

*edit* you have to love jim, whose entire answer is basically "all climate scientists and everyone who I disagree with are socialists." He can't go 2 sentences without calling someone a 'leftist' or 'socialist'. He rants about political biases and yet provides zero scientific evidence to back up any of his completely bogus claims. What a joke.

They certainly aren't educated. They are political estimates. Even if you allowed that most of the warming of the last century was from human caused warming, that only amounts to much less than half a degree C. We are already at more than the half way point of increased forcing from doubling CO2. It hasn't warmed significantly in spite of their manipulation of the temperature records. They are imagining that suddenly there will be water vapor feedback that will enhance the warming when it hasn't so far. That isn't educated. That is shear idiocy and loons pretending to be scientific. 3 degrees Fahrenheit is at least not completely bats in the belfry nuts but it assumes that water vapor is a positive feedback and relatively high climate sensitivity. That is far from proven and if history is a guide, it is wrong. It would be good if 3 degrees were true but I wouldn't count on that much beneficial warming.

It's all guesswork. Generally when the masses begin assuming that a trend will last forever is about when it fails.

Everyone simply assumed and "knew" that real-estate prices would always rise.. until about two years ago.

If they ever get a prediction right, I'll start paying attention to their predictions. I still remember the predictions I heard in the mid 1970's of glaciers in Minneapolis, that one didn't work out so well. I expect about the same from the newer batch of predictions.

They cannot be more accurate because predicting the activity of the Sun (a significant factor in the Earth's overall temperature, that AGW alarmists seem to overlook with gusto), is like predicting the weather. The tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis are also factors in warming/cooling cycles.

I’m all for reducing POLLUTION (like fluoride in water) – but CO2 is not a pollutant - it is an essential gas of life, that plants require.

In addition, even the simplest efforts at research and kiddie-science debunks AGW.

————————————-

** 99% of the atmosphere is N2 and O2, 0.039% is CO2 **

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)

Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)

Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 387 ppmv (0.0387%)

————————————-

** CO2 has LOWER specific heat capacities than Nitrogen, Oxygen, or Air in general **

Air — 1.01

Nitrogen N2 1.04

Oxygen O2 0.919

Carbon dioxide CO2 0.844

————————————

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of blending and common sense can understand that adding more of something with a factor lower than the average, will bring DOWN the average. If your soup is too salty, you add more water, because it is less saline - bringing down the overall salinity (it tastes less salty). In the exact same way, more CO2 actually COOLS the Earth as it is less heat retentive than "air" (the average). It is one of Earth’s many ways of self-balancing (via the oceans degassing of CO2). This is why the geological record shows increases in CO2 *follow* warming periods, rather than precede them.

Is there some mystical-magical "global warming factor" that is unique to CO2 that no science book has ever recorded? Maybe -- I call it the "Al Gore Factor".

Aside from that, Water Vapor has a factor of 1.93 -- Water vapor has 2.28x the heat capacity of CO2, and makes up 1-4% of the atmosphere (depending on weather conditions) – that’s 26x to 105x that of CO2 !!

Should we tax water vapor as well? Naw, The AGW alarmists know they couldn't get away with that, because its just too ridiculous. But CO2... we've been systematically conditioned for decades to feel guilty about CO2 via TV and other media. But despite the propaganda, it is not a pollutant, but an essential component of life on Earth.

AGW is a huge lie that anyone can debunk with 5-minutes review of the their junior high school science book. Its not even a good lie.

-------------------------------

Edit:

I see the AGW community is in full force here. Many thumbs down on facts, science, and references to back it up, by people who haven't cited any references - a hallmark of AGW fanaticism taken to a religious level. Good thing REAL science is NOT done by "consensus", which is why Al Gore keeps trying to appeal to his "consensus" of bought-off scientists (as we learned from Climategate) .

These folks are unfortunately being played as tools to bring in a global carbon tax (a tax on life), payed directly to the IMF to back their new SDR currency, and initiate a World Government. As another poster mentioned, this is the resurgence of the socialist agenda.

I encourage all to do the simple experiment at home, as described in the "spinonthat" source link below.

I even saw on another GW topic, some folks claiming N2 and O2 aren't greenhouse gases because they only have 2 atoms - completely ignoring their respective heat capacities. LOL. Conveniently, they defined for themselves that greenhouse gases must, MUST, have 3 atoms or more.

Others claimed that CO2 absorbs long-wave IR reflected from the Earth. LWIR ranges from 8–15 µm. This is the "thermal imaging" region.

Fact is, all matter absorbs and emits IR in proportion to its temperature. This is called "black body" radiation. Physicists say all matter has the same characteristics in absorbing and emitting black body radiation.

Their argument is not based on science folks, this is plain old rationalization and double-speak for a faulty argument, typical of religious zealots.

The concept of redirected radiation is absurd. The wavelengths in question saturate, meaning they get totally absorbed. They can't travel far enough to get to the surface of the earth, unless they are emitted from air which is very close to the earth's surface. Such radiation certainly can't get from the top of the troposphere to the surface of the earth. If greenhouse gasses are absorbing radiation on its way up, they are going to absorb it on its way down.

The above explanations apply to this. There is no reflection involved. Greenhouse gasses absorb at one set of wavelengths (fingerprint radiation) and emit at a different set (black body radiation) after some delay.

Saturation makes the entire subject irrelevant.

They are guessing . They make up Bogus Charts and Computer models.

Mann and the IPCC would have better luck with a 8 ball.