Sci/Tech Planet at Risk of Heading Towards Apocalyptic, Irreversible ‘Hothouse Earth’ State
- Thread starter Zeph
- Start date
Climate change causes abnormal weather patterns, yes?
its going to be 38c or 100.4f tomorrow and smoked right out.if its going to be that hot it would be nice to see blue sky but according to environment canada it was 40c on this date in 1998 back when the hole in the ozone layer was causing the greenhouse effect
M
member 3289
Guest
Argues just to argue. Cares not about proving a point.
You really going to pretend you didn't see what happened there?
That kinda is up for debate. Carbon levels are definitely rising but increased carbon doesn't necessarily lead to a warmer planet.
A lot of climate change data is based on temperatures that include urban areas, which are warmer than rural areas. Over the past 100 years, urbanisation has increased dramatically, and therefore so has the ambient temperature in those locations. If we adjust for this by removing data points from urban areas, the warming is more gradual and doesn't follow an increase in carbon levels.
I have a Facebook book friend who is a global warming scientist and this is from some of his research (I hope he's ok with me sharing this):
Satellite data of the lower troposphere aligns with the rural data plot, rather than the total mean. We can see that temperature levels haven't been consistent with the increased carbon levels, which started to ramp up in the 1940s. In fact, there was a period of cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s.
He also explains that (and it gets quite technical), according to the theory of carbon dioxide based global warming, doubling CO2 should lead to a 1C change in surface temperature. However, CO2 has only increased from ~0.03% to ~0.04% since the late 19th century, whereas warming has increased by 1-1.5C. So according to the theory, man-made GW would only be about 20%-40% of the increase we've seen, yet models claim 100% is man-made. Looking at the modelling further, they incorporate some feedback loops based on increased humidity but digging into that shows they actually predict 3-5 times the warming that's occured. Some man-made cooling was then incorporated into the modelling to bring the figure back down. Basically, the models are retro adjusted to fit the data that keeps defying them.
I can ask him to come here for a Q&A if anyone is interested.
Goodness gracious......I was half joking as my dad always says exactly what I wrote
And the cap and trade “scheme” in the EU was a mess but alas, the UK government tried out the ole carbon reduction commitment (CRC - changed names and I believe it’s being phased out in lieu of another programme now) whereby they charged companies based on their co2 emissions from electricity and were to put a league table in place that was set out to benefit those that reduced their emissions the most funded by those at the bottom that couldn’t or didn’t reduce their emissions.....the U.K. government later changed the rules (1 or 2 years into it iirc, it’s been a while) to zero benefit for the best performers to making the crc a tax on all businesses to “support the govt finances”....
Lolzy’s
As far as I'm concerned we can throw this into a box with Y2K, the Acid Rain scare, the new ice age, Al Capone's vault, etc, tape it up, put it on a shelf and let it collect dust.
From what I understand the cooling during the 40s-70s was just during the day, but the average nighttime temperatures continued to rise in line with global warming. This was because of certain aerosols were introducing sulfide to the atmoshphere that introduced a scattering effect in the lower atmoshpere during the day that lowered temperatures. They got banned in the U.S., where this data is likely from, in the 1970 clean air act, and since the 70s greenhouse gas emissions have gone through the roof as you can see from this graph.That kinda is up for debate. Carbon levels are definitely rising but increased carbon doesn't necessarily lead to a warmer planet.
A lot of climate change data is based on temperatures that include urban areas, which are warmer than rural areas. Over the past 100 years, urbanisation has increased dramatically, and therefore so has the ambient temperature in those locations. If we adjust for this by removing data points from urban areas, the warming is more gradual and doesn't follow an increase in carbon levels.
I have a Facebook book friend who is a global warming scientist and this is from some of his research (I hope he's ok with me sharing this):
Satellite data of the lower troposphere aligns with the rural data plot, rather than the total mean. We can see that temperature levels haven't been consistent with the increased carbon levels, which started to ramp up in the 1940s. In fact, there was a period of cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s.
He also explains that (and it gets quite technical), according to the theory of carbon dioxide based global warming, doubling CO2 should lead to a 1C change in surface temperature. However, CO2 has only increased from ~0.03% to ~0.04% since the late 19th century, whereas warming has increased by 1-1.5C. So according to the theory, man-made GW would only be about 20%-40% of the increase we've seen, yet models claim 100% is man-made. Looking at the modelling further, they incorporate some feedback loops based on increased humidity but digging into that shows they actually predict 3-5 times the warming that's occured. Some man-made cooling was then incorporated into the modelling to bring the figure back down. Basically, the models are retro adjusted to fit the data that keeps defying them.
I can ask him to come here for a Q&A if anyone is interested.
I'd love for a Q&A. I mean he is making some very big claims about the many, many, scientists studying climate change. He also doesn't seem to deny that it is happening, just that it isn't linked to co2, which is very convienent for the oil companies that have been paying a few scientists for years to say exactly that.
He says that his research (not yet peer reviewed) leads him to believe that the global warming we're witnessing is natural, although he says we should make our own conclusions. I'll ask him, if we have any more interest here.From what I understand the cooling during the 40s-70s was just during the day, but the average nighttime temperatures continued to rise in line with global warming. This was because of certain aerosols were introducing sulfide to the atmoshphere that introduced a scattering effect in the lower atmoshpere during the day that lowered temperatures. They got banned in the U.S., where this data is likely from, in the 1970 clean air act, and since the 70s greenhouse gas emissions have gone through the roof as you can see from this graph.
I'd love for a Q&A. I mean he is making some very big claims about the many, many, scientists studying climate change. He also doesn't seem to deny that it is happening, just that it isn't linked to co2, which is very convienent for the oil companies that have been paying a few scientists for years to say exactly that.
But he's also disputing it is from co2?
I just want to get this straight. You've got a friend on facebook that is an unpublished climate scientist that propagates disproven climate myths like the one about the 40s-70s, thinks global warming we are experiencing is natural but not down to co2 emissions, believes there is massive conspiracy amongst all climate scientist modelists to edit their data to lower the amount of warming it predicts to be in line with the amount of co2 in the atmosphere - despite studies of their models showing they have consistently underestimated the effects - and wants us to come to our own conclusions. Correct?
No, he hasn't said anything about a conspiracy. I don't know if he's unpublished, only that his current research has not yet completed peer review. He understands why people think that CO2 leads to warming. He explains why it may not be the case and I've verified his explanations separately.
He provided an explanation of his work and how the experiments showing that CO2 is a green house gas haven't actually demonstrated that. He then said I shouldn't take his word for it. I can link you to the thread on my Facebook page if you like.
But I just want to get this straight, you disagree with this position and rather than have a discussion based on facts, you've made up some statements in an attempt to discredit someone and make an appeal to authority. Correct?
I just did a quick Google and he IS a published scientist, if it matters to you: Ronan Connolly - Google Scholar Citations
Actually more CO2 in the atmosphere making the planet hotter gets debated often. 100 years ago scientists made that claim and most are clinging to it even though new studies show that isn't always the case.