Ipcc Says Global Warming

Convince me we've warmed at all in the last 15 years.

 

i was on the fence before on this issue, but after reading about the AGW theory (i never knew it was called that before), i am pretty convinced that the climate is warming due to human activity.

what actually changed my mind specifically is reading about the "global carbon cycle". the global carbon cycle explains why co2 levels lagged behind temperatures, and it explains how co2 released by humans still effects the temperature even though the ocean emits more co2. these were actually the only two arguments that i had against man-made global warming.

 

i dont really understand your argument? if you google "global temperature increase" you can get a bunch of different graphs from a bunch of different sources that all agree that the global temperature has increased. obviously they all measure different indicators, but over all the data shows the earth is warming.

 

oh also, i think 15 years is kind of a short time to measure. i think most measurements are like decades and centuries on a lot of graphs.

 

Yes.

The standard averaging period for a climatic normal is 30 years.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_data_and_products.php

First-- 15 years isn't a statistically significant amount of time to identify a trend.

Second-- it hasn't been a 'pause', the temperatures are still rising, they're just rising at a slower rate.

Third-- the 'slowdown' over the past 15 years hasn't applied to the oceans, where warming has accelerated.



The simplest, most widely believed explanation for this is that the oceans are absorbing the warming that would have happened over the surface.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2116.html

But there are other factors as well-- aerosol pollution has a short-term cooling effect on the climate, as do volcanoes:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-dimming-volcanoes-partly-explain-global-warming-hiatus/

And the long-term trend is almost certain to be warming:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-slowdown-likely-to-be-brief/

Probably because the oceans can only store the heat for so long, and are set to release it back into the atmosphere:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rapidly-warming-oceans-set-to-release-heat-into-the-atmosphere/

 

you're an idiot........

lowering the ph of something is acidifying it or acidification
a ph of 8.2-8.3 is the ideal ph for coral growth and optimum health. coral will survive at a ph of 7.8, but the growth is greatly diminished and slowed. at lower ph corals have a much harder time calcifying and producing their skeleton and growing.
this info comes from decades of reef keeping where such parameters have been very closely measured and tested.
give this a read; http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-06/rhf/

yeah, I know you will say that isn't the ocean, but the chemistry is the same and the effect it has on marine life is the same.

also there are soooo many factors involved in climate change that your continuous harping on CO2 only demonstrates your lack of understanding, knowledge and consideration of the topic.

 

http://www.coralscience.org/main/articles/climate-a-ecology-16/reefs-at-low-ph

 

I'm going to give you a chance to reevaluate that graph and figure out why there's no reason for anyone to be concerned about it.

 

Aww don't start hurling insults pumpkin.

Firstly, the carbon tax is the actionable issue, so we should obviously focus on that. Approach this as if there are people who will profit from the carbon tax (there are) AND people who will profit from coal plants providing power to people (there are). Explore both sides of the issue. Play devil's advocate with yourself.

You've already tried to prove carbon tax proponents right, now try to explore how they might be manipulating you. This 8.2 to 8.1 issue, how confident are you that the ocean didn't go from 8.155 pre-industrial to 8.148 today? This 7.8 number is entirely alarmist, and a maximum prediction. But let's take the maximum possible decrease of alkalinity as fact. In 100 years, when we see the maximum possible decrease of alkalinity, Coral will see some dropoff in growth efficiency. It won't all die, it won't wither away, it won't dissapear. 10% decreased growth? 20% decrease growth? Maybe that high, in the maximum possible decrease scenario, in 100 years.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the ocean, lobster, shrimp, and crabs are enjoying the changes tremendously. They're more hardy and their numbers are swelling.
http://news.sciencemag.org/2009/12/acidic-oceans-may-be-boon-some-marine-dwellers
Full steam ahead nukkaaaaaaaaa


Chooooooooooo Choooooooooooooo

 

How much has it increased? One degree? Show me the graph that you think best indicates CO2 causing warming. Don't be scared. Pick out the graph that you find most convincing.

 

I reiterate,
you're an idiot.

 

Care to address the arguments or scared to address the arguments?

 

from wikipedia:
HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly instrumental temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.[1]


so i posted that graph because i think it comes from a good source and is one of the graphs that clearly shows an obvious trend in global temps.

thats a tricky question because i still cant agree with your original premise. from my own research, the way i understand it, CO2 did not initiate past global warming trends, but did amplify them. in fact when you look at data sets over thousands of years, you can see a trend that 90% of temp increase followed an increase of CO2 levels.

the reason why co2 lags temp changes is because earths orbit affects the seasonal sunlight that reaches different surfaces on the earth, this causes ocean temps to rise and sets off a chain reaction in the Global Carbon Cycle. as ocean temps rises they release more co2 into the atmosphere , in turn this amplifies the warming trend and releases even more co2 into the atmosphere. in other words, its a positive feedback loop. now add man made CO2 to this system, and you can see how this can be a major problem.


there are a couple of things i would like to point out about the arguments you have been posting nerdanerthal:

1) in most of the studies that have to do with global warming, scientists usually use a data set which spans thousands of years. when studying a trend that spans thousands of years, obviously were not going to get significant increases in the last 15 years. but it doesnt mean that global warming has somehow stopped, just that 15 years is not enough time to show any data that is statistically significant.

2) the studies which show co2 change is lagging behind temp change does not disprove global warming. read about "global carbon cycle" and you will see that all these graphs actually support global warming because that lag can be easily explained and was even predicted as part of the global warming phenomenon. see: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen) (published 1990):

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

ok so now since everyone is playing "battle of the graphs", i would like to post my favorite one. this graph comes from a 2012 study by Shakun et. al, and it shows the temperature changes 20000 years ago and the CO2 concentration.

this study shows that :

1) The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.

2) The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

3) While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurred after that atmospheric CO2 increase.






Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots).

source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

in his defense, noxiousgas only stoops this low when he runs out of logical arguments. lets show him how a proper debate works.

 

I give up.
Why?

 

go fuck yourself dickhead, you don't know fuckin' jack-shit about me whatsoever, ya fuckin' moron. you been here what, weeks now????

there is no logical argument when dealing with deliberate troll fucktards such as nerd.
"runs out of logical arguments"....LOL fuckin' priceless.....what a dick.


I choose not to engage fucking assholes in their asinine quest to try and rile folks up.
nerd is a lame troll, all he can ever do is post asinine videos and ridiculous "science" in the deliberate attempt to achieve exactly what he has, attention.

 

i love it when people show their true colors.

 

All a hoax to get more of our money!
Just look who is behind all this: to name a few; Gore, Soros, Suzuki,
All thieves, liars, charlatans, living of the avails of others, namely working people generating tax money.

 

no its not, there is scientific evidence which you cant ignore. the biggest being the close relationship between CO2 and global temperatures.

 

Yes, Soros runs shit along with Kissinger and Brzezinski. They are the ones who have been out in the open about it anyway, along with Rockefeller.