Has Global Warming Reached The Tipping Point of No Return?

by frankiespeakin 100 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JWoods

  At least for layman like ourselves this is true, it would be nice if we could get some really good mathematicians on this to be conclusive and come up with some really good mathematical models that would make predictions that could be positively test.

  Here is the deal - the really very best of the climate mathematicians have not been able to create a computer/mathematical model which has even come close to predicting the actual warming/cooling overall change.

  It really is just speculative guesswork, regardless of what they are saying in the news media.
• 

  villabolo

  JWoods:

  "Here is the deal - the really very best of the climate mathematicians have not been able to create a computer/mathematical model which has even come close to predicting the actual warming/cooling overall change."

  The United States is in third place in the world as far as super computer power. Far more powerful supercomputers and more sophisticated models will help to know not the validity of Climate Change, but the full extent.

  It may interest you to know that past predictions that climatologists have made, particularly those regarding Arctic Ice Cap meltdown and Greenland's Glaciers, have been consistently understated, predicting less meltdown than the actual situation. Here is the real deal, things are consistently worse than they imagined possible.

  villabolo
• 

  Satanus

  Villabollo

  Ya well, considering that, a few yrs ago they were predicting an ice age that would be true. I still remember a 'popular science' mag on the coming ice age. It quoted respected scientists who explained how and why this ice age was imminent. Some of those same scientists are on your team, now.

  S
• 

  villabolo

  Satanus, that cliche about an ice age being predicted by reputable sources is getting to be tiresome. If you keep up with Besty's comments and threads you will find that he responded to it the other day. Bottom line: back then when we were is a very mild state of coolness (1930s through 1970) 85% of climate scientists were predicting Global Warming and the rest were predicting Global Cooling. Popular Science and Newsweek (I believe) were misquoting scientists simply for the sake of sensationalism (Please don't tell me that Popular Science is a reputable source.

  Even Hollywood got in the act and came out, in 1973, with a movie about Global Warming called Soylent Green, starring Charleton Heston. Yet it is not the errors of these magazines that count so much as the reason why you would even want to pay attention to them. Primary sources are what count not Media-s**t.

  And as for claiming that some of the same (Global Cooling)scientists are on the Global Warming team right now please don't insult my intelligence. That was 40 years ago and while a few of the a)Reputable but misquoted b)Pseudo scientists may still be alive now I don't think you can name a single one. And even if you can please look at this figure real closely and deduce the obvious: Early 1970s, percentage of Global Warming and Global Cooling scientists, 85/15. 2009 percentage of GW vs GC or "no change in the climate" scientists, 97.5/2.5.

  Presumably a whole generation of scientists have died out and/or the evidence is more clear and a few Global Cooling scientists converted to Global Warming through continued scientific discourse. (I still think that the 15% from the 1970s have mostly died out now)

  villabolo.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  A radio interview with Lovelock

  http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R609130900
• 

  villabolo

  Frankiespeakin, thank you for all the links to Lovelock. He definitely falls into the extreme end of the Climate Change camp. Not that extremity in a philosophical or scientific issue means that you're wrong. The IPCC worse case scenario for Arctic Ice Cap melt turned out to be understated.

  There are other external (To Global Warming) issues such as Peak Oil that may change the dynamics of how we screw ourselves up. It only takes a modest and quick oil shortage to bring down the US. Such a fuel shortage could either synergize with Climate Change and insure our collapse or it may only cause a partial collapse which would actually, by "encouraging" (read forcing) us to develop alternative technologies or entire alternative societies may actually strengthen their ability to withstand the worse effect of Climate Change as the following decades bring on its worse.

  villabolo
• 

  WTWizard

  That is a scam. The planet is actually coming out of the Little Ice Age, and simply returning to normal. If we were warmer in the First Dark Ages than we are now (Greenland was clear of ice then), I see no danger to wildlife this time (including polar bears). Yes, there will be hardships to certain wildlife--but that is simply part of natural climate change.

  Plus, how in hell could we be warming Mars?
• 

  besty

  The planet is actually coming out of the Little Ice Age, and simply returning to normal.

  How do you define 'normal' and what is causing the return to this 'normal'?

  If we were warmer in the First Dark Ages than we are now (Greenland was clear of ice then)

  Can you put some dates on the First Dark Ages?

  Plus, how in hell could we be warming Mars

  I'm not aware of any climate scientists that suggest we are warming Mars.
• 

  TD

  The United States is in third place in the world as far as super computer power.

  Okay, I have to ask.

  In the 2009 biyearly competition, U.S. facilities took 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th place.

  4th place, (Germany- Forschungszentrum Juelich) was an IBM design. 5th place (China - Tianjin/NUDT) was an Intel based cluster.

  Are there unofficial claims of faster machines?
• 

  villabolo

  WTWizard:

  That is a scam. The planet is actually coming out of the Little Ice Age, and simply returning to normal.

  We came out of the little (European and North East North American "ice age" around 1850 and what got us out of that is in some climatologists opinion the accumulation of CO2 from the Industrial Revolution a hundred years or so back.

  If we were warmer in the First Dark Ages than we are now (Greenland was clear of ice then),

  Don't take it personal but claiming that Greenland was free of ice is ridiculous. That would have raised ocean levels by 23 feet and there would have been plenty of archaeological evidence to confirm that.

  I see no danger to wildlife this time (including polar bears). Yes, there will be hardships to certain wildlife--but that is simply part of natural climate change.

  That depends on how fast the warm up goes. As far as evolutionary adaptation time is concerned, it is happening too fast to prevent mass extinction.

  Plus, how in hell could we be warming Mars?

  Mars has its own dynamics, very different than Earth's. It has much larger variations than Earth in its rotation because it lacks a large heavy moon like ours to serve as a gravitational anchor. This instability causes many temperature extremes. It also has an ultrathin atmosphere and ice caps made of frozen CO2 both of which are very volatile and react to the slightest change. There simply is no comparison.

  Also, the very claim that Mars is warming up is very suspicious to me because I remember that being used as an argument against Global Warming since the late 1970s and early 1980s. How much warmer has it supposedly gotten since the deniers, 30 years ago came up with this.

  You want, in my opinion, to believe that it's the Sun that's doing it for psychological reasons that have nothing to do with science. If it's the Sun who's guilty of the crime then human responsibility can be shirked off.

  villabolo