Not my job as I see it. As I said, the debate doesn't get to the starting line for me. It's up to the sceptics to show where the numbers go wrong. And here to tell you - not one ever has. On here, on anywhere else I've read - including climatesciencedaily.com
Imagine this - someone tells you that the earth's climate will definitely fly out of the comfort zone. You have the chance to stop it. How much would you pay? 80% of your wealth? 90%? The situation is that the scientific consensus is that unless we change human behaviour, the climate of the earth will become difficult to keep stable, with many unknown consequences. To stop it, you are being asked for about 0.5% of your income, and to switch off lights when you don't need them. Maybe stick a couple of solar panels on the roof, which might take 8 years to pay back the investment. Maybe buy a slightly smaller car. All of this is peanuts compared to the possible consequences. I would want to be VERY VERY VERY sure that the climate science consensus was wrong before I started betting the planet against slightly higher energy bills.
In fact I haven't seen one even suggest that it will make any significant difference?
Another question - do you think that their might be some politicians that are involved in this that are using climate change as an excuse to try and form some sort of world government (un-elected one at that if they come from the UN).
Scarfman, I read that volcanoes erupting, release some crazy amount of C02 int the atmosphere. How does the amount emitted from a big eruption compare to human emittance?
You must know that this is wrong.
???
Let's say - I haven't heard that one - but if the other options are Gillard and the MM, I might take the unelected bureaucrats.
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was completed in early 2007. Like previous assessment reports, it consists of four reports, three of them from its working groups.
Working Group I dealt with the "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change." The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on 2 February 2007 and revised on 5 February 2007. There was also a 2 February 2007 press release. The full WGI report was published in March. The key conclusions of the SPM were that:
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
- Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).
- The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
- World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
- Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1–23 in) [table 3].
- There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves, and heavy rainfall.
- There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.
- Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
- Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.
The guy in the original video you posted has conducted a study of the available data and has come up with similar results to the guys he criticised for using Mike's Trick.
See the link in my previous post.
The long and the short of it is that Evans has used a small and suspect variation from predicted outcomes (it should be noted that the only thing that isn't recorded is the hotspot bubble - all the records show that the tropical troposphere is warming), to attempt to disprove the whole model. It may be that the hotspot is never found, because the models need adjusting, but his conclusion would still be incorrect.
Thanks Matty. Seems to be changing his tune, hey?
I guess there are three arguments made by 'denialists':
1. The poor data and techniques used by climate scientist to prove their points.
2. There is a possibility that warming is occurring naturally, not just man made.
3. Is the doom and gloom really going to occur, or will the earth find a new equilibrium?
- World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
- Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1–23 in) [table 3].
- There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves, and heavy rainfall.
- There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.
- Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
Without evidence to the contrary, I accept all of that. Unless my logic is warped, that must be accepted unless there is evidence to the contrary. For the doubters, what is your evidence to the contrary?
In order to do something about it, we need to do something (rather than wait for the rest of the world to do something). The carbon tax, while not perfect, is the best option of the two (Abbott's being the other) and, for that reason alone, I support it. If Abbott comes up with a better option, I'll support that. If Pauline Hanson came up with a better option, I'd support that.
A model always needs to be verified to determine if it is correct or not. If it makes predictions that can't be verified, then it is obvious it is flawed. Of course it doesn't mean that all its predictions are incorrect, but it does mean there is a flaw (although not necessarily a fundamental one).
In the case of a really massive eruption (7 or 8, or perhaps even an upper 6, on the USGS Volcanic Explosivity Index) the value I quoted in my previous post would likely be rather different. From a 7 VEI eruption, we might see volcanic CO2 output for a single year of rise to 20% (perhaps more) of human annual output. This kind of eruption would have a net cooling effect though, due to the large amount of the SO2 and ash particulates being forced into the upper atmosphere. We have already seen this happen once in recorded history - the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 (which was an order of magnitude larger than Krakatoa in 1883) is widely accepted to have been the primary cause of the 1816 global phenomenon called the "Year without a summer" (thought the Dalton Minimum, an historic low in solar activity, is also thought to have played a part). During this period hundreds of thousands in Europe died of famine due to crop failures and disease (it is also affected America and Asia, though records in many of these parts of the world not well kept at the time, which makes modern examination difficult).
You accept all of that, and yet you are not screaming from the tree tops everyday to people to stop driving their cars and to turn their big screen tvs off?