Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Delhommey

2012 The Hottest Year on Record...

62 posts in this topic

If I think I'm making a difference, then i must be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about anything pre 1895? oh wait

globaltemp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey twylyght what do you think that graphic you posted means? be specific

Global warming and cooling existed LONG before people did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesn't refute human influenced climate change

maybe you posted in the wrong thread? idk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesn't refute human influenced climate change

maybe you posted in the wrong thread? idk

Ok... so I take the extrapolations of the totality of global climate and compare it to the sliver in time to what has been presented... and I am the one that is closed minded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are you even talking about?

is the implication that, because climate has changed over the course of billions of years, humans cannot have an effect on it? if so, please explain

e: if not, please clarify whatever point you're trying to make, rather than expecting everyone else to guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I got from twylyght's graph is that it's gon get a lot hotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are you even talking about?

is the implication that, because climate has changed over the course of billions of years, humans cannot have an effect on it? if so, please explain

This is the evidence in its totality. What has been spoon fed to us over the past 2 decades is that we are killing ourselves due to our collective carbon footprint.

When I dare to crtically think and research the issue, it stands to reason that such a conclusion is FAR from a slam dunk like it has been claimed. No one is disputing that that the earth is warming. The dispute (and a reasonable one at that) is whether people have the significant effect that the current craze is claiming. Looking at the big picture, our existence is barely a blip, and it is frankly quite arrogant to attribute such powers in the face of relatively small windows of relative time.

Take a look at what the scientific community KNEW a hundred years ago and see how that stacks up to today. Turns out, we weren't as right as we thought we were. I expect that our track record will continue with what we "know" today.

The scientific method works because the methodology is predicated upon an experiment bearing out results. We formulate an understanding according to the paradigm and then test it. When we find enough anomalies to refute it, the paradigm shifts to something else that works for us. It doesn't necessarily mean that we understand anything better... we just know more about our environment and how to manipulate it to the ends that we seek.

That said, there is better evidence that global climate is affected by solar activity, oceanic activity, and volcanic activity than what mankind has created in the totality of its history. Just because Tom Brokaw says that New York City will be underwater by 2010 on the authority of the leading voices of the global alarmist community doesn't mean that it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason i asked you to elaborate is that what you posted could easily qualify as evidence in support of mankind's ability to affect climate. here's a good source on that:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

summary:

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).

How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.

Some recent analyses used the well-observed forcing and response to major volcanic eruptions during the twentieth century. A few studies examined palaeoclimate reconstructions from the past millennium or the period around 12,000 years ago when the planet came out of a global ice age (Last Glacial Maximum).

What can we conclude from this? We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.

CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites