UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade

[petros]

We already have it in the form of molten salt reactors running on the thorium fuel cycle in the slow neutron spectrum and fast spectrum MSRs running on the uranium fuel cycle. We could power the entire world for a year on about 10,000 tons of thorium, which is about how many tons of coal an average sized power plant will burn in 12 hours. You can also use electricity to make synthetic fuel from air. Uranium and thorium supplies are virtually limitless, with the identified reserves already giving us thousands of years of energy at current levels.

Canada already has extensive experience with working with thorium in CANDUs, but instead of developing safe, relatively clean and efficient nuclear power we've helped the Chinese with their thorium program. Fossil fuels aren't the future nuclear power is despite what idiots are claiming about Fukushima. Even modern PWRs like the AP-1000 and ESBWR are a better bet than vast and highly destructive fossil fuel projects.



Ice is three dimensional not two, the single year ice may be better this year but the ice cap itself on average is less than half as thick as it was 30 years ago. A decade of record single year ice may replace what's been lost.



Hurricanes are the result of complex conditions coming together from across the globe, for instance Atlantic hurricanes begin as atmospheric depressions in Eastern Africa. Strong wind blowing NE off of the Sahara can help prevent the development of hurricanes by putting a lot of dust into the air which acts to cool the ocean surface which is where a hurricane gets it energy. Also on strong El Nino years prevailing winds that usually blow to the west at northern subtropical latitudes can reverse and blow east at high level preventing the kind of high altitude cloud buildup that is necessary to create the feedback that leads to a hurricane developing. Warmer waters are just one element in hurricane development.



The warming trend has slowed due to a number of factors including the lowest solar sunspot activity on record, and we still set a number of record warm years in the 15 years since 1998 which was a very strong El Nino year.



It's a steady progress, not one big jump. By the time you and many people are finally convinced it will be too late to do anything about it. What are you waiting for anyway, the evidence is there in the temperature increases, changes in the timing of the season, loss of ice cover globally, increase in extreme weather events, thermal expansion of the oceans and more.



It's not an industry, it's baseline science. The same physical theories that allow us modern electronics, material science, and more are the basis of understanding radiative forcing of the atmosphere by the increase of compounds like CO2 that act to slow the transmission of longwave radiation into space. And while CO2 is a trace compound, it also plays a key role in moderating the climate, the planet wouldn't be warm enough to support complex life it wasn't there. The issue now is how fast we're increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the ability of natural systems to compensate. Right now a lot of the CO2 is going into the oceans, but as it also known as carbonic acid it's also making oceans more acidic with serious consequences for lifeforms there. Considering that oceans are one of the main sources of oxygen and food on planet, this issue alone is troubling.



As I said, carbon dioxide is an acid, the ocean have already become much more acidic due to the release of billions of tons of CO2 a year by human activity.

Ocean Acidification -- National Geographic



And while CO2 may only make up a small part of the atmosphere, it isn't transparent to longwave radiation as molecular nitrogen and oxygen the main components are. The issue is how much additional longwave radiation gets absorbed and re-radiated back to the Earth's surface as we increase the concentration of CO2. The physical principles are pretty clear that it doesn't take much CO2 to cause dramatic shifts in climate.



We've put several hundred billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the least 200 or so years, it becomes part of the carbon cycle and doesn't simply disappear. Much of it will still be cycling through the system hundreds and possibly thousands of years from now. It's the cumulative affect that is at issue, not one year in isolation.

The system has been in relative balance until recently, it's the human forcing causing the current shifts in the system.



The math says that if you continuously add a strong absorber of longwave Em radiation into the atmosphere the entire system will warm up resulting in climate change. The basic physics are clear and the real world evidence backs it up.

What you're describing is becoming close to flat Earth nonsense.

Some Th227 would be a good idea for having that Global Warming Cancer removed..

 

[Locutus]

What's this war on faux-warming costing us (profiting them) a year? Bueller?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

What will you do to make amends if you are totally wrong? If i am wrong it does not matter because i can do f-all anyway. I doubt that a lot of whining on an internet forum will move heaven and earth:lol:

It's nuclear fission, not fusion.

The technology is there, it just needs to be built.

I'm talking about hope for the future, all I really see from the other side is fear driven denial.

UN Climate Change Report Ignores 15-Year 'Pause' in Warming

Your Fred Singer science really doesn't add up.

Long-Term Global Warming Trend Continues : Image of the Day

Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) say 2012 was the ninth warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998. The last year that was cooler than average was 1976.
The map at the top depicts temperature anomalies, or changes, by region in 2012; it does not show absolute temperature. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was in 2012 compared to an averaged base period from 1951–1980. For more explanation of how the analysis works, read World of Change: Global Temperatures.
The average temperature in 2012 was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.55°C (1.0°F) warmer than the mid-20th century base period. The average global temperature has increased 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880, and most of that change has occurred in the past four decades.

 

[petros]

1.0F since mid century? That's it? Where is the 3C?

 

[Locutus]

It's nuclear fission, not fusion.

The technology is there, it just needs to be built.

I'm talking about hope for the future, all I really see from the other side is fear driven denial.



Your Fred Singer science really doesn't add up.

Long-Term Global Warming Trend Continues : Image of the Day

Who's 'science'?

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/s/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

 

[Cliffy]

 

[PoliticalNick]

Geothermal is best in areas of seismic activity, and is also associated with accelerating it. Not a good combination.

How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes?: Scientific American

Bullsh*t! Before I moved to the oil patch I used to do heating & plumbing including geo-thermal systems. You can heat a house from a pond that maintains a temperature over 40f. I did a system that heats 112 mobile homes and their clubhouse that uses pipes buried 5ft deep over an area the size of a soccer field. Now if you had a clue you would know that you don't need geysers and volcanic vents. Just drilling a hole in norther Alberta to a depth of 2-4km you will find temperatures of 50-70C which is plenty to generate power and as a heat source.

That's your responsibility not mine.

My resposibility is to provide for my family and I do it quite well right now. You want me to jump on board with changes that will mean I can't provide for them in the same manner. Well if you want me to agree to those changes then you need to make sure I can provide for them otherwise you can go f^ck yourself! I don't believe the fear-mongering anyway.

The energy is there in the form of fissile and fertile elements that can be burned in MSRs to provide ample and effectively limitless power without driving the global climate into unsustainable regions. The new economy that developing large scale nuclear power would create would have opportunities that simply aren't available relying on the volatile and limited fossil fuel supply.

Sure thing, Uranium is of no danger to people or the environment. Ever hear of Chernobyl? 3 Mile Island? Fukishima?

Fossil fuel developments can have serious and permanent negative consequences as we're seeing across the globe. It's not about a limited number of people getting rich while the rest of us are expected to pick up the eventual bill, it's about what works best for individual and common needs.

I"m one of those getting rich Jack, I don't give a sh*t about you.

That's the industry generated spin, an industry you seem to be part of. The objective evidence says that climate change is real, it's serious and it us driving most of it. The subjective view of some people who refuse to accept that change is needed possibly because it affects their limited self-interest is it's not happening, it's not serious and it just couldn't be us.

It is ALL industry spin! My industry spins everything to say there is no problem, the AGW industry spins everything to say there is a massive problem. The real problem is the science is so varied and and every study has a different potential outcome. Scientists are being gagged when their research shows anything apart from the results the sponsor wants. It isn't science anymore, it is manipulated statistics based upon the best interests of those funding the science.

So I'll make you a deal.....As soon as I get up one morning in the middle of January and it is above freezing and palm trees are sprouting in my yard I'll buy your theory. Until then I will make a fortune off fossil fuels and you can stop bugging me with your crap!

So did the room cool down, heat up or stay the same temperature?

Hard to say, I was in the living room watching tv. ;-)

 

[petros]

Why? When was the last time you left the Kootenays?

What are you hippies doing there that it looks so bleak?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) say 2012 was the ninth warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998. The last year that was cooler than average was 1976.
The map at the top depicts temperature anomalies, or changes, by region in 2012; it does not show absolute temperature. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was in 2012 compared to an averaged base period from 1951–1980. For more explanation of how the analysis works, read World of Change: Global Temperatures.
The average temperature in 2012 was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.55°C (1.0°F) warmer than the mid-20th century base period. The average global temperature has increased 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880, and most of that change has occurred in the past four decades.

And according to the graph in post #85 the ten warmest years in the last 10,000 years were 8,000 years ago and the next 10 warmest were 2500 years ago. In fact we are a long way below the warmest levels over the last 10,000 years. So far below as to be considered cold even.

 

[Blackleaf]

Met office proof that global warming is still 'on pause' as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising



A year since the Mail on Sunday revealed global warming stopped in 1997, Met Office data proves it is still 'on pause'

Met office proof that global warming is still 'on pause' as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising | Mail Online

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

The poster boys of climate change thrive in the icy Arctic: Polar bears defy concerns about their extinction



Despite dire predictions of a 70 per cent decline in the polar bear population by 2050, studies show numbers appear to have stabilised.

The poster boys of climate change thrive in the icy Arctic: Polar bears defy concerns about their extinction | Mail Online

 

[Tonington]

In the deep where it doesn't do anything to alter climate?

No, not just in the deep. And even if it were, you are of course still mistaken. Deep ocean water mixes with surface water and thus the atmosphere all the time- never heard of thermohaline circulation or polynyas? More heat in the ocean means more heat exchanged at the ocean-atmosphere interface. Of course that impacts climate. What the hell are you smoking?

Anyone who actually believes that the world isn't gaining heat is plainly ignorant. There is a radiative imbalance. You'll have to re-write the physics to explain how the gain of heat would stop. When the ocean gives back another big pulse of heat the low information folk will be back screaming about ENSO being the cause, conveniently forgetting where the heat comes from in the first place.

 

[PoliticalNick]

No, not just in the deep. And even if it were, you are of course still mistaken. Deep ocean water mixes with surface water and thus the atmosphere all the time- never heard of thermohaline circulation or polynyas? More heat in the ocean means more heat exchanged at the ocean-atmosphere interface. Of course that impacts climate. What the hell are you smoking?

Anyone who actually believes that the world isn't gaining heat is plainly ignorant. There is a radiative imbalance. You'll have to re-write the physics to explain how the gain of heat would stop. When the ocean gives back another big pulse of heat the low information folk will be back screaming about ENSO being the cause, conveniently forgetting where the heat comes from in the first place.

Doesn't matter how many big words you use the present and historical evidence show AGW to be nothing but a normal cycle. Humans have survived many such cycles in the last 10,000 years where the average atmospheric temperature was much higher than anything current trends point to. Please feel free to believe whatever you like but if you are gonna cry wolf and say money will prevent the apocalypse you can't count on me chipping in, it's all on you.

 

[Tonington]

Doesn't matter how many big words you use the present and historical evidence show AGW to be nothing but a normal cycle.

Oh really? Human caused climate change is a cycle? Don't think so. I suppose you're going to say human caused flooding is a natural cycle too? And how about human caused species extinctions? All part of natures cycle? That is ridiculous.

Big words...I didn't think so, but lets see if you can understand this. More energy is coming into the planet than is leaving. Satellites can and are measuring this. Which is entirely consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect. Waving your hands and saying it is part of some cycle, without evidence, well that's why scientists have jobs and we pay them to study the universe. They can actually show with evidence why something is occurring. Which is how risk should be managed.

Humans have survived many such cycles in the last 10,000 years where the average atmospheric temperature was much higher than anything current trends point to.

Please feel free to show where I said we won't survive this. My opinion is that it's just an added hardship that future generations will be paying for, much like the liabilities of today's pensioners and aging boomers will be paid later by my generation.

 

[Kreskin]

The latest argument against climate change is "oh you're ignoring the temperature hasn't changed in 15 years!" I guess someone in 1976 would argue that it it hadn't changed in 40 years.

U.S. and Global Temperature | Climate Change | US EPA

 

[PoliticalNick]

The latest argument against climate change is "oh you're ignoring the temperature hasn't changed in 15 years!" I guess someone in 1976 would argue that it it hadn't changed in 40 years.

U.S. and Global Temperature | Climate Change | US EPA

Actually my argument is that we are at one of the coolest points in the last 10,000 years and we have to get a hell of a lot warmer to get even half way to to the average temperature over that period.

Global Cooling is Here | Global Research

 

[Colpy]

The latest argument against climate change is "oh you're ignoring the temperature hasn't changed in 15 years!" I guess someone in 1976 would argue that it it hadn't changed in 40 years.

U.S. and Global Temperature | Climate Change | US EPA

Absolutely. And considering the world has an ever-changing climate and is billions of years old, one idiocy is as valid as the other.

 

[darkbeaver]

Of course global warming is man made. it's cheap theatrical religion selling what else, salvation.

 

[Blackleaf]

An MIT scientist has derided the IPCC report, saying: 'In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about'​

MIT scientist ridicules IPCC climate change report, calls findings 'hilarious incoherence'​

By Daily Mail Reporter
30 September 2013
Daily Mail​

Amused: MIT climate professor Dr Richard Lindzen blasted the IPCC report, calling it 'hilariously incoherent'​

Not all experts agree with the latest United Nations report on global warming, some are even amused by its findings.​

A climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has come out blasting the report for blaming humans for a global warming trend that appears to have cooled in recent decades – and then glossing over the warming slowdown.​

‘I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,’ Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot – a site known for questioning the theory of global warming.​

Dr Linzen’s amusement comes from the lack of correlation between predictions and actual conditions.​

‘They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,’ Dr Linzen continued.​

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserted in the report that it is 95 per cent sure humans’ use of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.​

The report also provided what Dr Linzen felt was a shoddy explanation for the lack of warming over the past 17 years.​

‘Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,’ the amused scientist said. ‘However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.’​

Difference of opinion: Activists gather outside the the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in support of the group's findings​

This slapdash explanation for the lack of warming, Dr Linzen stressed, is proof the IPCC knows little about what is actually happening.​

‘They now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified,’ said the amused scientist.​

Dr Linzen’s derision of the IPCC report comes amid evidence that warming hasn’t occurred over the past 17 years, and that polar ice caps are even expanding.

Despite strong evidence that global warming may be on hold, the IPCC still insisted that the report’s findings should alarm anyone denying the theory.​

But global warming has stopped: Dr Linzen correctly points out that the climate hasn't warmed in 17 years, a trend the IPCC report virtually dismisses while blaming humans for impending doom​

The report found support among American politicians. Chief among them, Secretary of State John Kerry.​

‘Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire,’ Secretary of State John Kerry said shortly after the report’s release.​

‘Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate,’ he added.​

A revised UN report on climate change is set to be released Monday.
​

This 2007 report from the Left Wing, Global Warming-obsessed BBC was laughably inaccurate

​

Read more: MIT scientist ridicules IPCC climate change report, calls findings 'hilarious incoherence' | Mail Online​

 

[EagleSmack]

We should bear in mind that the UN is simply communicating a message based on the science. If you want to prove BS on their part, as a skeptic, then you need to find some kind of misrepresentation on their behalf.

But as an AGW proponent, I guess I shouldn't be doing the skeptic's job for them, should I?

(oh.. that's I got here.. oh right.. lol)

The UN wants more money from developed nations... except China, India, S. Africa, and Brazil. That is all. It is about money.

UN Climate Change Report Ignores 15-Year 'Pause' in Warming

Are you surprised? That is a nail in the coffin for them.

 

[Zipperfish]

Doesn't matter how many big words you use the present and historical evidence show AGW to be nothing but a normal cycle. .

Actually it does matter how many big words you use. That's the thing about science. :lol: