Is global warming even real?

[Ilikeponies579]

I'm not sure who to believe on this subject, I've heard that the climate has changed before and that the ice caps have even melted before, but global warming is still being mentioned and governments are even trying to take action against it, there are people who say that it's a scam, but some of these people seem to be the same people who think that the music industry is controlled by the illuminati, so I'm not sure how seriously to take them, is it real?

 

[billvon]

I'm not sure who to believe on this subject, I've heard that the climate has changed before and that the ice caps have even melted before, but global warming is still being mentioned and governments are even trying to take action against it, there are people who say that it's a scam, but some of these people seem to be the same people who think that the music industry is controlled by the illuminati, so I'm not sure how seriously to take them, is it real?

The climate has changed before when we had nothing to do with it for a variety of reasons - meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions and solar cycles.
This time it is our doing.

 

[rpenner]

The Earth's biosphere has a certain amount of energy coming into it, primarily from the sun; the Earth's biosphere has a certain amount of energy leaving it to space. The atmosphere is the only thing between the biosphere and space. The chemistry of the atmosphere has changed measurably in historical times for reasons which are entirely tracked to human industry including the burning of fossil fuels. Since 1824, science has supported the idea that the types of changes we are seeing in the atmosphere could cause measurable global temperature rises, which modern data fully corroborates. The catalogued atmosphere changes fully account for historical temperature trends as averaged globally and over a multi-decade scale. Most of the heat of the biosphere is in the ocean and there is a stronger pattern where most of the heat is. The sun is not getting hotter, but we are because of the atmospheric changes and the fingerprints on the atmospheric changes pinpoint the cause as human industry.

Not really sure where (reasonable or scientific) doubt remains in that.

 

[sculptor]

Climate science has very much become political science, rife with dichotomous beliefs.
Personally, I think that the AGW crowd has grossly overstated their case. During much of the last century's warming, we were experiencing a rare grand solar maximum. Many solar scientists are postulating opinions that we are now headed into a grand solar minimum.
How much warming or cooling is anthropogenic in nature, and how much is directly related to the sun's output remains in doubt. How much dampening of those potentials is controlled by the earth and cosmic radiation also remains a puzzle to be solved.
I suspect that there ain't no simple answer to this one.

 

[origin]

I'm not sure who to believe on this subject, I've heard that the climate has changed before and that the ice caps have even melted before, but global warming is still being mentioned and governments are even trying to take action against it, there are people who say that it's a scam, but some of these people seem to be the same people who think that the music industry is controlled by the illuminati, so I'm not sure how seriously to take them, is it real?

Global warming is based on the analysis of data and models developed by professional climatology scientist. I do not have an accurate count but I believe the number of climatology scientists that believe that the"music industry is controlled by the illuminati" would be quite small.

So I think you can take them seriously.

 

[origin]

Climate science has very much become political science, rife with dichotomous beliefs.
Personally, I think that the AGW crowd has grossly overstated their case. During much of the last century's warming, we were experiencing a rare grand solar maximum. Many solar scientists are postulating opinions that we are now headed into a grand solar minimum.
How much warming or cooling is anthropogenic in nature, and how much is directly related to the sun's output remains in doubt. How much dampening of those potentials is controlled by the earth and cosmic radiation also remains a puzzle to be solved.
I suspect that there ain't no simple answer to this one.

Since it is not simple it would make sense to have some level of confidence in the climatologist that have dedicated there lives to understanding the climate, no? I think it is safe to ignore Al Gore and Fox News, and listen to the climatologist. But hey that's just me.

 

[sculptor]

Which specific clmatologists did you have in mind?
Which ones do you "listen" to?
Which discussins have you been following?

 

[billvon]

Climate science has very much become political science, rife with dichotomous beliefs.
Personally, I think that the AGW crowd has grossly overstated their case. During much of the last century's warming, we were experiencing a rare grand solar maximum. Many solar scientists are postulating opinions that we are now headed into a grand solar minimum.

We're already there; the last solar cycle was remarkably low-output. And yet we are still hitting record temperatures. So while solar output is part of the climate story, it's not the whole story. The _primary_ (not only) reason we are now seeing warmer temperatures is anthropogenic alterations to the atmosphere and earth, primarily through our releases of CO2 and methane.

How much warming or cooling is anthropogenic in nature, and how much is directly related to the sun's output remains in doubt.

We do know that between 1.6 and 2.4 watts per square meter is being contributed by AGW causes.

I suspect that there ain't no simple answer to this one.

That's true - but we now know a lot of the underlying science as to why it's getting warmer.

 

[origin]

Which specific clmatologists did you have in mind?
Which ones do you "listen" to?

The American Association of State Climatologists (AASC), NOAA and probably 50 to 100 individual climatologist. The overwhelming majority agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. There are some climatologist that do not agree this is happening. This issue has become absurdly political. I ignore the political as much as possible. I have not seen Al Gores movie, I do not pay attention to MSNBC or FOX NEWS when they try to put out their 5 second sound bites. The overwhelming majority of the scientist agree that the science of climate change is real. I have seen the data and I agree.

Which discussins have you been following?

I follow most of the discussions. Global warming is occurring, however as far as the predictions of what that will mean for the planet is a lot of speculation due to the dynamics and inherently chaotic aspects of weather. I think we are living in a pretty risky experiment though.

 

[krash661]

Climate science has very much become political science, rife with dichotomous beliefs.
Personally, I think that the AGW crowd has grossly overstated their case. During much of the last century's warming, we were experiencing a rare grand solar maximum. Many solar scientists are postulating opinions that we are now headed into a grand solar minimum.
How much warming or cooling is anthropogenic in nature, and how much is directly related to the sun's output remains in doubt. How much dampening of those potentials is controlled by the earth and cosmic radiation also remains a puzzle to be solved.
I suspect that there ain't no simple answer to this one.

look into the half life of CO2, then compare that with CO2 build up by fossil fuels. that alone will give an realistic idea.

 

[sculptor]

I do not doubt that athropogenic atmospheric forcing with geenhouse gasses will have a waming effect on the atmoshere and thereby on the surface of the earth.
I not doubt that the earth has been warming almost steadily since the maunder minimum, with accelerated rates of warming during the last 1/2 of the last century
I do not doubt that durng the last 1/2 of the last century we were experiencig a rare grand solar maximum.
I do not doubt that, in the past, a warmer climate has invarably been a more equable climate.
I do not doubt that during the last superinterglacial @400kyr ago our ancestors were thriving on vastly superior natural abundance in every single place that we have found their remains.

Has global warming been real? Yes!
Has that warming been outside of the natural cycles? Perhaps.
Will the experienced warming of the recent past continue through a poential grand solar minimum? I doubt it.
(We are not now in a grand solar minimum, but may be drifting into one.)
There is a rule of thumb that roughy states that lower solar irradience as proxied by sunspot numbers, and longer solar sunspot cycles both lead to cooler temperatures.

What all of the above means for our climate and temperatures 10-20-30 years hence remains highly speculative.

 

[rpenner]

in the past, a warmer climate has invarably been a more equable climate.

On what evidence and what criteria?

during the last super interglacial @400kyr ago our ancestors were thriving on vastly superior natural abundance in every single place that we have found their remains.

On what evidence and what criteria?

What all of the above means for our climate and temperatures 10-20-30 years hence remains highly speculative.

If you had any credibility at all, I would ask you to quantify that. But you are just a propaganda machine spewing uncertainty and doubt on no rational or empirical basis.

 

[sculptor]

sculptor said: ↑
in the past, a warmer climate has invarably been a more equable climate.

On what evidence and what criteria?
On what evidence and what criteria?.

This ain't kindergarten----look up equable climate...read the papers.

sculptor said: ↑
during the last super interglacial @400kyr ago our ancestors were thriving on vastly superior natural abundance in every single place that we have found their remains.

On what evidence and what criteria?

Look up heidelbergensis in south africa circa 400kybp, and the pit of the bones in spain irca 430kybp.

Let us behave as adults and discuss science instead of trading infantile insults.
You up for that?

 

[billvon]

I do not doubt that, in the past, a warmer climate has invarably been a more equable climate.

That's akin to saying "more water invariably helps people." Certainly not true to people in New Orleans or Florida.

When temperatures rise, some people are helped and some people are harmed. Southern California will undoubtedly be harmed by exacerbating drought problems. Buffalo, NY may be helped by moderating their climate, or it may be harmed by increasing lake-effect snows. Phoenix will almost certainly be harmed by higher temperatures. Thus it is not accurate to say that warmer universally is better for people. It is almost universally bad for animals and plants, since animals and plants are currently well-adapted to the climates they are in. Historically, during times of warming, mass extinctions occurred.

 

[sculptor]

That's akin to saying "more water invariably helps people." Certainly not true to people in New Orleans or Florida.

When temperatures rise, some people are helped and some people are harmed. Southern California will undoubtedly be harmed by exacerbating drought problems. Buffalo, NY may be helped by moderating their climate, or it may be harmed by increasing lake-effect snows. Phoenix will almost certainly be harmed by higher temperatures. Thus it is not accurate to say that warmer universally is better for people. It is almost universally bad for animals and plants, since animals and plants are currently well-adapted to the climates they are in. Historically, during times of warming, mass extinctions occurred.

Do you and I have the same undersanding of "A more equable climate"?
(It seems not)

 

[Yazata]

I'm not sure who to believe on this subject

I'm not a scientist and I'm not sure either.

From the layperson's perspective it's basically an argument from authority, a demand that we have faith in what the elites tell us. How successful that kind of rhetoric will be depends on how much confidence we have in the elites. Given how passionate and politicized this subject has become, and how linked it is to grand social-change agendas, and I have to say that my own confidence is limited.

I've heard that the climate has changed before and that the ice caps have even melted before

If we look at the Earth's whole geological history, there have been tremendous climactic changes that had nothing to do with human beings and whose causes remain poorly understood. There apparently have been periods when the Earth didn't have any polar icecaps at all, and researchers have suggested that there might have been a period long ago when all of the Earth's seas were frozen, even at the equator. (The 'snowball Earth hypothesis.) That's the range of natural variation seen on this planet and we seem to be well within it today. Certainly it's well established that the last ice-age lasted until comparatively recently, about 12,000 years ago, and that its end was a global warming event that dwarfs anything seen today in magnitude (though perhaps not in rate).

but global warming is still being mentioned

I'm inclined to believe that it's been happening over the period in which good measurements have been taken, the last 150 years or so. Obviously a lot of the rhetoric that laypeople are subjected to is total hyperbole, such as the hysterical talk of this being an extinction-level event. But I'm reasonably confident that some changes have been observed.

and governments are even trying to take action against it

Within reason, some of those actions are probably good ideas even if global warming wasn't a concern. We are going to have to start weaning ourselves off fossil-fuels at some point, since their supply is limited. It's advisable that the West not be dependent on the Middle East for its energy supplies. And China has a terrible air-pollution problem that it really needs to get a grip on.

there are people who say that it's a scam

It's a highly politicized cause, whatever else it might be. It's probably well past the point where we can expect dispassionate objectivity from anyone. Hiring and tenure decisions depend in part upon people expressing the 'correct' opinions on this. Authors' access to journals depends on it. So outsiders start to wonder whether the conclusions are being driven by the data, or whether the data is being driven by the conclusions.

I'm certainly in no position to know precisely what the truth is. But people are demanding my faith nevertheless and I'm just not prepared to give it.

 

[origin]

I'm not a scientist and I'm not sure either.

From the layperson's perspective it's basically an argument from authority, a demand that we have faith in what the elites tell us.

Huh? Elites are not telling you anything. Professional scientist in the field have come to a consensus. I suppose if you have a heart attack you don't want the medical opinion of some elitist doctor you could rather contact Bill O'Reilly for his opinion.

 

[billvon]

It's a highly politicized cause, whatever else it might be.

Agree.

It's probably well past the point where we can expect dispassionate objectivity from anyone.

Completely disagree there.

Hiring and tenure decisions depend in part upon people expressing the 'correct' opinions on this. Authors' access to journals depends on it. So outsiders start to wonder whether the conclusions are being driven by the data, or whether the data is being driven by the conclusions.

If a scientist could conclusively disprove the link between CO2 increases and radiative forcing they would not be rejected from journals; they would certainly be published and would almost certainly win a Nobel prize. Science prizes paradigm-shattering research - but to really shatter a paradigm you have to prove your case quite well indeed.

I'm certainly in no position to know precisely what the truth is. But people are demanding my faith nevertheless and I'm just not prepared to give it.

I don't give my "faith" to any scientists, nor have any demanded it.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I don't give my "faith" to any scientists, nor have any demanded it.

There is an enormous difference between reasoned faith, such as the faith you place in your dog after he has been devoted to you for ten years, and unreasoned faith, such as the faith of the religionist in bizarre and counterintuitive notions that were first developed in the Bronze Age and for which not one shred of credible supporting evidence has ever been presented.

It's okay to have faith in scientists--at least the ones whose work has been reviewed exhaustively. But it's just plain stupid to have faith in gods.

The only so-called "evidence" ever presented by the religionists is a tortilla (one out of millions fried every year) with a scorch mark that is said to be the likeness of a prominent figure in the Bible--of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it.

 

[Billy T]

Deficit equals about three years demand, which in turn is greater than supply!

Water storage in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins measured "11 trillion gallons below normal seasonal levels" earlier this year, according to data presented by NASA scientists ... Since 2011, those basins have decreased in volume by 4 trillion gallons of water per year — a rate that outpaces the amount used yearly by California residents.

{Billy T notes: That implies supply is less than 50% of demand}
Groundwater levels in the entire Southwest United States "are in the lowest 2 to 10 percent since 1949."NASA scientists were able to view the impact of drought on the groundwater resources ... by integrating data collected from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) with other satellite measurements. — these airborne measurements are the first calculations of their kind, and the analyses "would be impossible using only ground-based observations."

In addition to the groundwater loss, NASA also found that the snowpack in California's Sierra Nevada range was half of the levels estimated for 2014, according data from the agency's Airborne Snow Observatory. The snowpack was "one of the three lowest on record and the worst since 1977, when California's population was half what it is now,"

BTW, in first 6 weeks of the "rainy season" Sao Paulo's main water reservoir has FALLEN nearly 1 % - at 7.0% of capacity now.
Too bad the "deniers" are so badly WRONG. Hard facts are really hard on people globally now.