Only God controls the weather

[cremeegg]

In fairness john, it's a hard one to call. Who should the non-scientist amongst us give more credence to?
Lots of questions arise: NASA or Healy Rae; NASA or Trump?

But what are NASA saying. Having looked at their website as suggested by Purple, it seems to me that all they are saying is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

They are not saying how this has happened.

They are not saying that this has an overriding influence on the climate.

They are not saying what we could or should do in response to this increase in CO2 levels.

They are not saying that we need to create a panic of over reaction.

 

[Dan Murray]

But what are NASA saying. Having looked at their website as suggested by Purple, it seems to me that......

Eh no - this is getting a little farcical and depressing. Cremmeegg, have you honestly taken the trouble to visit the NASA site? I would urge you to take the time to familiarise yourself with its content. Please look, in particular, at this section which explains the evidence, the causes, the effects, the scientific consensus, etc.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Let me take quote just one extract which addresses a lot of your questions....

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades if not centuries. That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it.

In the absence of major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by an average of 6 °C (10.8 °F), according to the latest estimates. Some scientists argue a “global disaster” is already unfolding at the poles of the planet; the Arctic, for example, may be ice-free in the summer within just a few years. Yet other experts are concerned about Earth passing one or more “tipping points” – abrupt, perhaps irreversible changes that tip our climate into a new state.

But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach: 1) “mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and 2) “adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is: what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come? Recycling and driving more fuel-efficient cars are examples of important behavioral change that will help, but they will not be enough. Because climate change is a truly global, complex problem with economic, social, political and moral ramifications, the solution will require both a globally-coordinated response (such as international policies and agreements between countries, a push to cleaner forms of energy) and local efforts on the city- and regional-level (for example, public transport upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, sustainable city planning, etc.). It’s up to us what happens next.

 

[cremeegg]

Im sorry but this is just verbiage. It does not address anything

Let me take quote just one extract which addresses a lot of your questions....

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already,

What evidence is this statement based on ?

and we have set in motion more changes still.

and again what evidence?

Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades if not centuries.

Hold on now, we have gone from, "major climate change" which has seemingly happened already. While there may be evidence for this I just ask where; to "global warming would continue", well without a proven cause and effect, a demonstrable model, this is just speculation.

Now NASA is entitled to speculate, but I ask where is the evidence and so far no one is pointing me to it.

That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it.

Complete speculation. there seems to be no evidence, any model can only be speculative and who knows what is in the model. Let me ask you does the above statement take into account the plate tectonic effects on CO2 levels.

In the absence of major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by an average of 6 °C (10.8 °F), according to the latest estimates.

Why 6 degrees, why not 3 or 9. Cause the model predicts 6, but the model is just made up.

Some scientists argue a “global disaster” is already unfolding at the poles of the planet; the Arctic, for example, may be ice-free in the summer within just a few years.

And the antarctic ice sheet is reported to be growing. So what, no one knows what this means.

Yet other experts are concerned about Earth passing one or more “tipping points” – abrupt, perhaps irreversible changes that tip our climate into a new state.

"Yet other experts", come on thats really feeble.

I know that CO2 levels have increased since the 1950s cause a Californian called Dave Keeling went and measured them in Hawaii, and there is a continuous record of CO2 levels in the atmosphere since then, but what other evidence is there, serious question.

A respect for science relies on opinions or conclusions based on evidence, not on the reputation of the organisations holding particular views. Now I am as concerned for the future as anyone, and I recognise the usefulness of the precautionary principle, but the whole climate change panic seems to me to have far outstripped the evidence.

 

[cremeegg]

CO2 levels have increased since the 1950s... a Californian called Dave Keeling went and measured them in Hawaii,

As an aside atmospheric CO2 is measured using a "non-dispersive infrared sensor" an apparatus invented by Carlow born John Tyndall. In this global warming discussion let us not forget the parochial.

 

[Dan Murray]

My dear Cremeegg

Earlier, you said NASA did not address certain questions.

I provided you with a single extract from the FAQ section which happened to address the majority of these questions in a simple and accessible manner for general consumption - together with a link to much more general and technical resources. You may not be happy with the answers in the simplified extract provided but please acknowledge that your previous assertion of NASA being silent on these matters was simply false (........or do you deny this also??!!). This, honestly, would be very much appreciated.

Now you are questioning the quality of these answers (in one purposely simple extract)??!! I am not an environmental scientist - I very much suspect that you are not also - so there's no point in us trying out-blind men of Indostan each other at this stage. That said, I'd be interested to learn where exactly you find fault with the NASA findings, in this context, in relation to the South Pole. Please specify.

In the link that I provided, there is incredibly strong evidence of the consensus view of the scientific community in support of global warming being a function of our greenhouse gas emissions. Please advise whether you accept this?

The point I was making earlier is that, for the non-scientist, it comes down to who you trust as being the best authority on such subjects: NASA or Healy Rae; NASA or Trump (......where NASA is proxy for the scientific community more broadly, and Healy Rae et al are proxy for......well, it's late and I've had a beer, so I'll not elaborate)

Your initial response was that it was not clear where NASA stood in relation to these matters (as in.....they are not saying thisthatandtother). Presumably, you now accept that this is simply false. So, we are left with the question I posed earlier: who should we give more credence to? If you choose to subscribe to the Healy Rae and Trump views, that is completely your prerogative. I will place my trust in alternative sources.

 

[cremeegg]

In the link that I provided, there is incredibly strong evidence of the consensus view of the scientific community in support of global warming being a function of our greenhouse gas emissions. Please advise whether you accept this?

Of course I recognise that there is strong evidence of the consensus view of the scientific community in support of global warming. I am merely asking what that consensus is based on.

What evidence has been gathered that supports this consensus, and what model explains this evidence in a way that supports the idea of global warming.

The evidence for increased CO2 in the atmosphere is clear. Excellent measurements have been taken by the US NOAA (National Oceanic and Athmospheric Administration) since 1958.

Early models climate models assumed that man made CO2 emissions would lead to corresponding increases in atmospheric, when this was found not to be the case, the models were subsequently changed to include the carbon sink effect of the ocean.

So we don't understand very well how man made CO2 emissions effect atmospheric CO2 levels.

As for any effect this may have on climate, well I think we know even less.

As a straight forward question, not my only question just my first question, what evidence is there form global warming actually happening.

 

[Dan Murray]

Cremeegg

Before I go to the trouble of commenting further, can you address the two points I asked that you have ignored please?

.....please acknowledge that your previous assertion of NASA being silent on these matters was simply false

and

That said, I'd be interested to learn where exactly you find fault with the NASA findings, in this context, in relation to the South Pole. Please specify.

 

[Purple]

As a straight forward question, not my only question just my first question, what evidence is there form global warming actually happening.

Read this.
The evidence is there and it get stronger all the time.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Purple interesting link. But it focuses entirely on whether or no there is AGW. I would like to see the case for why this is bad. The link starts off telling us how essential GHG have been for life on Earth then makes the scientific case that we are increasing this same good thing.

I grant that NASA are better than DHR or the Donald at interpreting scientific phenomena but I treat their speculative predictions with skepticism. Have you ever seen how demographic predictions have turned out? Hopelessly wrong. Similarly macro economic predictions are a waste of space. Weather forecasting is similarly very primitive.

With the notable exception of Newton's prediction of the movement of the heavenly bodies scientists have in general been quite unable to predict the future.

 

[Purple]

Purple interesting link. But it focuses entirely on whether or no there is AGW. I would like to see the case for why this is bad. The link starts off telling us how essential GHG have been for life on Earth then makes the scientific case that we are increasing this same good thing.

Are you looking for scientific evidence of global warming, manmade global warming or reasons why climate change (getting hotter) is a bad thing?

I grant that NASA are better than DHR or the Donald at interpreting scientific phenomena but I treat their speculative predictions with skepticism. Have you ever seen how demographic predictions have turned out? Hopelessly wrong. Similarly macro economic predictions are a waste of space. Weather forecasting is similarly very primitive.

Weather forecasting is not a marco predictive model. Climate change is. Their predictions on changes to the Greenland Ice Cap have been stop on so far. Chances to habitat, migratory patterns and animal population movements have also been accurate.

With the notable exception of Newton's prediction of the movement of the heavenly bodies scientists have in general been quite unable to predict the future.

Newton was only expanding on the work of Johannes Kepler.

Dmitri Mendeleev designed the Periodic Table with enough space for 100 or so elements even though only 60 were known at the time (1860's, I think).
Tesla predicted mobile phones in the 1900's.
Also look at; the prediction that atoms existed, the expanding universe, black holes, the big bang etc. These are things which were hypothesized but unproven at the time they were thought up.

Than again it's not about predicting the future, it's about looking at what's happening now and assessing the results. Those results will be in the future.
These include warnings about over-fishing, over hunting, cutting down rain forests, obesity being the biggest health problem we in the West will face within the next decade or two and the existence and impact of man made global warming.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Purple I accept the scientific evidence of what is happening re GW.

Absolutely I am sceptical of the Armageddon predictions. Your link argues forcibly that GHG are what makes a lot of this planet hospitable to human existence, but not all. Couldn't this "blanket" if strengthened make even more of the Earth's surface hospitable?

I was never completely convinced by the adage that you can have too much of a good thing.

On Kepler v Newton, the former observed some empirical historic facts. It was Newton who derived the math to predict eclipses etc into the future.

I note your rejection of the existence of a God. But you seem to have an equivalent faith in the concept of Nature. This seems to me to be arguing that Nature has found a perfect balance and that Man by his behaviour is offending Nature and woe betide him/her for doing so. Really are you much different from DHR?

 

[cremeegg]

Read this.
The evidence is there and it get stronger all the time.

Excellent link Purple.

From it I learned

1. Scientists have seen over the last few decades a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. More energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

2. Green House Gases can trap heat in the atmosphere. {I already knew that but "can" is not the same as "have been shown to significantly"}

3. CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years. {this is dubious, but what is not questionable is that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 315 parts per million to 400ppm since 1958}

4. Most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Points 1 and 4 are fascinating. I had no idea that either of these things had been demonstrated. It certainly confirms my belief that the average greenie hasn't a clue, why don't they know these things. But it certainly does show me that atmospheric CO2 levels may have a significant effect on temperature.

Now Purple go on and show me where the evidence is that the globe has actually been warming, with some indication of the significance of the timescale.

 

[elacsaplau]

I had no idea that either of these things had been demonstrated.

So you question the general wisdom of the scientific community without being aware of the most basic tenets of the argument. Oh dear Lord. I can see the appeal of DHR to you

 

[Purple]

Now Purple go on and show me where the evidence is that the globe has actually been warming, with some indication of the significance of the timescale.

Bugger off and do your own research.

 

[Purple]

I note your rejection of the existence of a God. But you seem to have an equivalent faith in the concept of Nature. This seems to me to be arguing that Nature has found a perfect balance and that Man by his behaviour is offending Nature and woe betide him/her for doing so. Really are you much different from DHR?

Nature got along fine before we were here and will get along just fine after we are gone.
We aren't "hurting" nature, rather we are making our own ability to live here harder.
We will not destroy human life but we will cause suffering and hardship to hundreds of millions of people as the habitable areas of the planet change location.

 

[cremeegg]

Bugger off and do your own research.

Maybe I will ask DHR for a pointer, whoever that maybe.

 

[PaddyW]

What I've found fascinating since I decided to do a little research on the matter is that for the most part, the 'Greenhouse Effect' is actually quite a good thing for humans as it keeps heat inside the atmosphere, that would otherwise escape and make earth uninhabitable. Of course, on the other end of the spectrum too much of this effect can be a bad thing.

 

[Purple]

What I've found fascinating since I decided to do a little research on the matter is that for the most part, the 'Greenhouse Effect' is actually quite a good thing for humans as it keeps heat inside the atmosphere, that would otherwise escape and make earth uninhabitable. Of course, on the other end of the spectrum too much of this effect can be a bad thing.

Yep, that's the whole point of the debate.

If I remember correctly the surface temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere would be around -18°C. That's about 30°C lower than it is today. I'm open to correction on that.

 

[PaddyW]

Yes, you're right with -18c

 

[johnwilliams]

came across this yestereday
i admit some of it above my head (heavy reading for me ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
basically i think what it means earth is like a wobbling spinning top with light/heat (sun) shining on small spot
so as sunlight gets closer to north pole heats and release ice ,gets further away from south pole colder gains ice and vice versa ,same with our eliptical orbit of sun ,closer to sun warms up further away cools down