Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Looks like you let go of your old standards old man. I'm fine with the theory of AGW/CC.
...
T
K
O

As I already said, I made an hypothesis.
hpothesis=a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical and/or impirical consequences.

Why are you fine with the theory of AGW/CC? Is it because you are drawn to think that what you theorize (or others theorize for you) is law?

Because changing the balance of a closed system has effects. There's no doubt that this is true. It's only debatable how much of an effect actions have.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Looks like you let go of your old standards old man. I'm fine with the theory of AGW/CC.
...
T
K
O

As I already said, I made an hypothesis.
hpothesis=a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical and/or impirical consequences.

Why are you fine with the theory of AGW/CC? Is it because you are drawn to think that what you theorize (or others theorize for you) is law?

Because changing the balance of a closed system has effects. There's no doubt that this is true. It's only debatable how much of an effect actions have.

Cycloptichorn

The globe (i.e., the earth's content, surface and atmosphere) is not a closed system. It is an open system that is significantly affected by that which is inside it (for example, its hot cold, solid gaseous liquid contents, humans, other organisms, volcanoes, earthquakes, its other natural properties) and that which is outside it (for example, the sun, cosmic rays, meteorites, other planets, the natural properties of the rest of the cosmos).

Okie, Is this what you want?

ican711nm wrote:

Okie, Is this what you want?

Yes, your graph appears to show an "alarming" rise of 0.4 C since 1880.

Barring a meteor strike, the amount of matter that makes up the earth does not change and the amount of energy entering the system is relatively constant.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn

Scientists have long agreed that climate change could have a profound impact on the planet; from melting ice sheets and withering rainforests, to flash floods and droughts.

Now a team of climate experts has ranked the most fragile and vulnerable regions on the planet, and warned they are in danger of sudden and catastrophic collapse before the end of the century.

Explainer: What could happen next
If greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, the global average temperature will reach 2C above pre-industrial levels by 2050, according to the government's 2006 Stern report on climate change.

One of the first impacts will be droughts and floods, as rainfall increases at high latitudes and drops in the tropics. Some glaciers will disappear, though crop yields in some countries could rise, scientists believe.

Last year, a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded that human activity was "very likely" to be behind most of the warming seen in recent decades. It predicted a rise of between 2.4C and 6.4C by 2100.

The most likely rise, of 4C by the end of the century, would cause droughts across Africa, and a fall in harvests of 15% to 35%. Globally, crop yields would fall 10%.

Sea levels would rise by up to 59cm, with Bangladesh and Vietnam among the worst hit, along with coastal cities such as New York, London, Tokyo, Kolkata and Karachi. In Britain alone, there would be 1.8 million people at risk of flooding. The western Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets would begin to melt irreversibly and Europe would lose 80% of its Alpine glaciers. Across the Arctic, half of the tundra is at risk.

A 4C rise is predicted to drive 20% to 50% of land species to extinction and put 80m more Africans at risk of malaria as mosquitoes thrive.

[I'll ask again a simple bit of math.

Please take the average of the following sets of numbers

5,5,4,5,5,5,5,6
7,7,7,6,5,4,2,3

Then I'll ask what the significance of averages is when climate become more irratic not more moderate.

T
K
O

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Barring a meteor strike, the amount of matter that makes up the earth does not change and the amount of energy entering the system is relatively constant.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn

And climate is relatively constant also, but not perfectly constant, just as the amount of energy entering the system is not perfectly constant.

You just acknowledge the flaws in your own reasoning.

Well, let me as you: what has changed that could effect our environmental balance, recently, say over the last 500 years or so?

There's no flaw in my reasoning. I've never claimed that the environment was perfectly constant.

Cycloptichorn

We know that CO2 was once much much higher than it is now, without man.

Diest TKO wrote:

[I'll ask again a simple bit of math.

Please take the average of the following sets of numbers

5,5,4,5,5,5,5,6
7,7,7,6,5,4,2,3

Then I'll ask what the significance of averages is when climate become more irratic not more moderate.

T
K
O

Your question has no practical or fair comparison to the subject we are talking about. Weather or climate has no normal situation, only averages. If anything, your question does illustrate the flaws in your own arguments. You cannot use an average to illustrate that weather or climate is abnormal, if that is what you are attempting to do.

I'm not sure what newspapers you read, but everyone I read reports the actual temp, not the average thus far over the year.

That would be useless.
K
O

In terms of lifestyle and planning ahead say for the drive to work, the average temp would not be very useful.

Think otherwise?
K
O

A global average temp of about 15 C might suggest that we should grab our coats everyday.

Truth is, a global average is decieving in illustrating the EXTREMELY dynamic tempurature distribution across the globe. An average also says nothing about how the distribution changes over time.

Diest TKO wrote:

A global average temp of about 15 C might suggest that we should grab our coats everyday.

That's a bizarre claim. Maybe you're an exception but people, that is 99% of mankind, don't need a thermometer or weather bulletin to know when to grab a coat or an umbrella.

Diest TKO wrote:

Truth is, a global average is decieving in illustrating the EXTREMELY dynamic tempurature distribution across the globe. An average also says nothing about how the distribution changes over time.

So why all the fuss about a "global" warming of 1°F per century ?

You're right, we can certainly tell when our local climate is changing.

It's more than the average, it's the variation. That's why I gave the series of numbers, to show that a large variation can represent itself as a only a small change in the average.