Insight into Climate Change

**Scias** · December 14, 2008, 03:13 PM

Having only been taught some much about climate change at high school (very little) and I have only a basic insight into this area from looking at sites and watching a bits about it on TV.

I would like to have a little more insight but would also like it to be impartial on opinions as well as proven theories and knowledge, I was wondering if there were any sites any of you would recommend I check out for my own benefit as well as others for the sake of knowing.

I pretty know about the

opinions about it mainly in made of it being called fake and phony, and just to get money out of pockets which i guess is slightly true but casting that all a side.

**Lovejoy** · December 14, 2008, 04:20 PM

Uhm... Why do you only wanna hear one side on the debate? No one know which side got it right, but you have already made up your mind? You say you only have a basic insight into the matter - yet you "know" what side is right?

Read my thread (if u change your mind): http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=211383

**Scias** · December 14, 2008, 04:59 PM

All i was trying to tell you was what I know from what i have seen or heard of the debates going into climate change which was vague but I have checked out your thread and I sorry for implying audaciously the excuses of the climate change theory and 'facts'.

So i guess your against all (well some) claims of their being any existence of global warming or climate change? I only ask so that I can come to grasp to mind the 'false' or proven theories of this debate.

**Lovejoy** · December 15, 2008, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Scias

So i guess your against all (well some) claims of their being any existence of global warming or climate change? I only ask so that I can come to grasp to mind the 'false' or proven theories of this debate.

Climate change is happening. It happens all the time - it's natural. If it's getting warmer or colder... depends (on what you look at).

The thing is - some people seem to think humans is the cause of this climate change - but so far there's no prof of this. The only real "prof" there is is the so called computer "simulations". But those are unpredictable and not very good - they shouldn't be considered.

**Scias** · December 15, 2008, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Lovejoy

Climate change is happening. It happens all the time - it's natural. If it's getting warmer or colder... depends (on what you look at).

The thing is - some people seem to think humans is the cause of this climate change - but so far there's no prof of this. The only real "prof" there is is the so called computer "simulations". But those are unpredictable and not very good - they shouldn't be considered.

Yeah i also think that people seem to get climate change and global warming in a muddle as i did sorta did in my previous post.

Also did a little research into other energy renewables such as geothermal energy and realised that we forgot about the earth's core surely who would forget about that

not that im suggesting it would contribute to 'global warming' but hey u gotta take everything into consideration than just one reason and one reason alone, i am right?

Computer simulations.... well computers can only do so much at this period in time and to just even agree with a computer says on our global warming situation is just downright lazy and ignorant.

Thanks for the recent replies be happy to take a look at those external links

Cheers

**Frédéric Chopin** · December 14, 2008, 09:24 PM

I have not read it myself, but my physics teacher said wikipedia has a decent, reasonably well sourced article on it. You might want to look at that and the external links it gives to start.

**Musthavename** · December 15, 2008, 05:07 AM

If you want to see the for/against Global warming argument, there's a thread about it here.

I'm pretty sure the for camp linked to a lot of reports & such that should give you the insight you're looking for.

**Sphere** · December 15, 2008, 10:35 AM

In broad strokes....

Greenhouse Effect
The greenhouse gas effect is a well known process that takes place in our atmoshpere. Certain gases let in sunlight but trap radiant heat, much like the glass in a greenhouse. Without the greenhouse effect, the temperatures on Earth would be very simular to the temperatures on the moon (-387F at night). Likewise with too many greenhouse gases, the earth would have temperatures simular to Venus (900F).

CO2
Many gases contribute to the greenhouse effect to different degrees. Water vapor is the most influential greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, though not the most potent, its abundance makes it influential. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have spiked in the past century or so.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Global Climate & CO2
What is concerning is that data gathered mainly from ice-cores in Antartica show a very close link to global average temperature and C02 atmospheric concentration

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Conclusions
With a well known mechanism, and strong historical data, climatologist have created several computer models to predict the effects of rising Co2 in the atmosphere in the next 100 years. Most show a few degrees rise global average temperature, and sea level rise of around a meter.

It is important to remember though, that yearly variation in global temperatures is several degrees and the difference between two years can easily be greater than the total effect of global warming in the next 50-100 years. So attributing a single hot or cold year to CO2 induced climate change is silly.

CO2 induced climate change will slowly shift the global average a few degrees. This will not be that apparent to humans, we see temperature swings of 100F+ in any given year, so nobody will physically notice the difference between a 0-100F year and a 4-104F year. However, the oceans and polar caps will. They will absorb this extra energy in the system causing thermal expansion and glacial melt. This is the most serious effect, all others imho are rather meaningless.

**Lovejoy** · December 15, 2008, 04:35 PM

Thanks for the very good and informative post Sphere

The only thing I want to add is that in the second graph - it is the CO2 that follows the temperature - not the other way around(when the ocean heat they will release CO2).

I think we can all agree on that. Why would the CO2 otherwise swing around like that? Besides, if you look at the graph you can even see that the temperature go up and down first - the co2 just follows.

And I have already said what I think about computer "simulation".... they have not showed to be very trustful.

**Sphere** · December 15, 2008, 05:44 PM

I have read up on the lag, actually you posted a good article explaining it. In short, it suggests CO2 is the amplifier in a historical warming period, not the initiator.

However, getting lost in historical warming periods is not fruitful. Its key to remember that our CO2 levels are no longer on that graph, we heading towards the 400ppb range (the data for the past .5 million years has never been above 300ppb). So we are not in a period that mimics historical trends.

The key is we have a warming mechanism related to CO2, we have emperical evidence that CO2 contributes in some way to historical global warming periods, and we have solid data that current CO2 levels are way above normal and growing.

I agree that the least supported area is in future modeling, but that does not discredit the other solid science that raises very serious concerns.

**Lovejoy** · December 15, 2008, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Sphere

I have read up on the lag, actually you posted a good article explaining it. In short, it suggests CO2 is the amplifier in a historical warming period, not the initiator.

However, getting lost in historical warming periods is not fruitful. Its key to remember that our CO2 levels are no longer on that graph, we heading towards the 400ppb range (the data for the past .5 million years has never been above 300ppb). So we are not in a period that mimics historical trends.

Agree, looking back is hardly ever fruitful, especially when the conditions are different.

Originally Posted by Sphere

The key is we have a warming mechanism related to CO2, we have emperical evidence that CO2 contributes in some way to historical global warming periods, and we have solid data that current CO2 levels are way above normal and growing.

I agree that the least supported area is in future modeling, but that does not discredit the other solid science that raises very serious concerns.

I would say there is a lack of emeprical evidence - atleast I have not seen any at all. The CO2 levels are high yes.

The biggest problem for the GW-people is that there is nothing at all unusual with the "warming" we see today. The temperature has been higher then it is today numerous times just in the last 2000 years! And many times before that.

So.. what are down to? Computer models? There is nothing else suggesting the existence of a global warming caused by man.

Everyone should look at this lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06J...eature=related
(part 1 of 4)

I know it is youtube video!

But give it a shot. Professor Bob Carteris a very smart man - and even if you dont agree on everything he says - its still a intressting lecture. Atleast look at part 1. He take up much of what I have said in the last posts.

**Scias** · December 16, 2008, 05:27 PM

Ok so now i have a FAR better insight into this subject and I'm still left wondering if CO2 levels that are as high as they are will actually influence the temperature in rising rather than the other way around which was the actual trend before if i got this right?

Also we will deplete our fossil fuels eventually so really how much more damage are we really doing in the next 10+ years ahead if there really is any damage being done at all? I would like to also bring into question the influence nuclear power will have on our future renewable resources.