The science really is in on global warming

16
1

mlo_full_record

The piece of satire that was directed at Colin Craig from the very funny Citizen Blog was about global warming and on that front, there is little to laugh at.

This week the measured carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit 399.5 parts per million, the last time there was that much of a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 3 million years ago – although we’ll forgive Colin if he claims it was only 8500 years ago – that amount of carbon in the atmosphere makes the planet 3 degrees warmer with sea levels 25meters higher than they are now.

It took nature millions of years to build up Co2 to the these levels. We’ve done that in the space of a couple of century. The feedback lash from the manner in which we recklessly waste resources needs to be urgently addressed as the issue that risks all others.

So let’s be clear. The science really is in on global warming so if you are justifying your inaction under the pretense that there’s still some scientific question mark over anthropogenic climate change, rest assured you are just being politically lazy and not nihilistically pragmatic.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

16 COMMENTS

  1. Bomber, I know from your many posts that you have a highly critical mind. Yet you are willing to blindly accept the imo highly flawed, assumption based science that is climate modelling as FACT. It isn’t. We simply do not know enough about our biosphere to PROVE the effects our CO2 emissions will have. I would indeed argue that it involves a giant dose of mankind’s hubris. In any case, this climate change screams of scaremongering to me, and is a lot more about POLITICS than actual SCIENCE.

    • You do like writing crap.

      What is being observed right now -the highest level of CO2 in all of human history and the greatest meltdown of the Arctic in all of history- has nothing to do with climate modelling and everything o do with what Tyndall discovered in 1859, and what, in 1896, Arrhenius predicted would happen.

      The fact that people support your bizarre opinions indicates the low level of scientific literacy of many NZers.

      • “The fact that people support your bizarre opinions indicates the low level of scientific literacy of many NZers.”

        They really aren’t that bizarre. I just don’t think the climate models stack up, that’s all. Just because they “fit” the data doesn’t mean anything, especially when you analyse in detail how they were constructed. Have you done that? I have.
        Look, as an actual scientist (with a real life PhD), I will be the first to acknowledge that a given climate model “works”, once I see one that passes my own scientific scrutiny. None have done so yet. It seems my standards for this are significantly higher than yours. It doesn’t mean I’m right or wrong. It doesn’t mean you’re right or wrong. Climate believers and deniers alike would do well to not take this issue so personally.

        • Okay, so you refer to yourself as an actual scientist with a PhD. So what is your field of expertise? Botany? Microbiology? Materials testing? Engineering?
          – and you do keep going on about modfels even though they have nothing to do with it.
          Mine is environmental chemistry.

          Irrespective of that, observed data have nothing to do with models. -and you do keep going on about models even though models have nothing to do with it (which raises suspicion of your claimed scientific credentials because a ‘an actual scientist’ would know the difference. Meltdown of the planet is being observed right now, with near-perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature -it’s just that CO2 levels are now considerably ahead of temperature because it takes a long time to warm deep oceans and to melt ice. Therefore, we are ‘in for’ a rise in average temperature of several degrees Celsius over coming decades.

          That will be utterly catastrophic because the small increase above the long term average already measured, around 0.8oC, is messing up long-standing climate systems as the jet stream gets weakened and distorted. And is taking us rapidly towards an ice-free planet.

          As ‘an actual scientist’ you would be well aware of the Precautionary Principle’, and would be aware that positive feedbacks that self-reinforce and mutually reinforce have been triggered: they have the potential to raise the Earth’s average temperature by 16oC.

      • “and the greatest meltdown of the Arctic in all of history”

        Well, no that it isn’t accurate at all. Prior to the Cretaceous period there was no ice at the north pole at all. And earlier than that it was thicker than it was now

    • You really have no clue how science is conducted Nitrium.
      Science isn’t about proof. Proof is for logicians and mathematics.
      It is about evidence and the evidence for man made CO2 driving global temperatures is voluminous.

      We simply do not know enough about our biosphere to PROVE the effects our CO2 emissions will have.

      blah blah blah

      we’ve heard it all before…

      There is no proof that smoking causes cancer.
      There is no proof CFCs deplete the ozone layer.
      There is no proof …

        • No Nitrium, science is about evidence, not belief. Science is not a religion.
          Science is about <evidence not proof.

          So far all you have done is flapped your hands and blea. ted “there is no proof“. [On a previous thread you even linked to a PRATT on a youtube clip “CO2 is plant food”]

          Science is not about “irrefutable” proof.

          Go ask NASA about climate science, or does your PhD put you above understanding the merit of their considered opinion:

          http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • You are absolutely right. However, the climate models DON’T provide EVIDENCE do they? Only the climate itself provides the evidence, and I have NEVER stated that it isn’t changing. The REASON for why it’s changing is based on MODELS. However, these models provide only POSSIBILITIES, and climate scientist absolutely acknowledge this. The reason being that they can’t (yet) include every climate influencing variable and so are kludged with assumptions. I take them with a hefty grain of salt, because I actually understand how they are made and their limitations. You obviously put a lot more faith in them than you do – because they are only predictive, and not EVIDENCE based as you say.

          • No Nitrium, I put faith in the thousands of scientists who have worked hard in the field for over two decades.

            I put faith in the considered opinion of every major scientific institution on the planet who, in turn, have analysed and weighed the evidence.

            I do not put my faith in anonymous hand-wavers shouting on the internet. I do not put my faith in memes repeated from science denial websites or Newspapers – PRATTs such as “the models are flawed”.

            I go to the scientific sources and their representatives.

            Your claimed understanding of modeling in regard to climate science is extraordinary naive. It is also strawman argument, as modeling is just one facet of multiple strands of evidence.

            My side of the argument has the support of NASA and every scientific body on the planet; in contrast, you, have nothing.

    • There is a thing called Constructed Ignorance, whereby those who wish to remain ignorant go out of their way to avoid becoming informed.

      You are absolutely right about Nature Bats Last and the discussion about Near Term Extinction…… which is on track for some time between 2040 and 2080 but tending towards the earlier time frame.

      Long before the extinction phase there will be absolute mayhem, of course. That is likely to commence around 2017, as the economic system implodes and available energy plummets at the same time that climate chaos gets a lot worse.

      • Well capitalism is the cause of climate catastrophe and therefore destroying capitalism is the solution. If we do it soon enough, and stabilise the earth’s systems we prolong the period before NTE and may even avoid it. The problem is convincing people that they have to risk what they have got today on a gamble most do not yet understand.

  2. I see that Nitrium claims to have a PhD in Chemistry. I’m not sure whether that gives him higher paper qualifications than me or not. But as a chemist he should know that CO2 is a highly poisonous gas which acidifies the oceans and interferes with the formation of shells via disruption of the bicarbonate cycle.

    Of course, irrespective of the disastrous effect CO2 is having on temperature, we need to stop fossil fuel burning to preserve life in the oceans: once the organisms at the base of the food chain are gone the oceans effectively become dead -other than bacteria and certain algae- and that ‘Death of the Oceans’ means ‘Death of the Planet’.

    The proponents of looting the Earth and burning everything in sight will have their way -the bought-and-paid-for politicians are seeing to it right now- so there really is no hope for coming generations, I’m afraid.

    • ‘Death of the Oceans’ means ‘Death of the Planet’.

      Sorry The Planets got another 4.5 billion years, but as far as humans go Death of the Oceans, well the period leading up to that point = death of the human friendly environment, which will be the death of the title ‘planet’ as there will be no more language. 😉

  3. I think this is worth telling people about again.

    Thin Ice

    In recent years climate science has come under increasing attack, so geologist Simon Lamb took his camera to find out what is really going on from his climate science colleagues.

    Simon followed scientists at work in the Arctic, Antarctic, Southern Ocean, New Zealand, Europe and the USA. They talk about their work, and their hopes and fears, with a rare candour and directness. This creates an intimate portrait of the global community of researchers racing to understand our planet’s changing climate.
    http://thiniceclimate.org/

Comments are closed.