Does anyone know how long we have until "Global Warming" starts

[Blackout]

Until Global Warming starts endangering all living things on the planets ability to sustain of the earth itself.

I hear things on the news about how supposedly we might be able soon "go to Mars" and start cultivating life on it or something (which I think honesty, is B.S.) I think it's more of a ruse and instead in fact why they are in actuality implying is that with rising temperatures, the earth will actually start to resemble Mars and that's what the conditions will actually be like itself.

I mean, is Global warming and Climate change really happening this drastically that the earth will change dramatically enough over the next century or are they just over-exaggerating?

"If it weren't for the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere, early Earth would have been as frozen as is today. ... In other words, at some point, the Sun will become so hot that the Earth's oceans will boil. This is the ultimate form of global warming: a world so hot that water is impossible." Another excerpt: Life will thrive on Earth for at least another 1.75billion years and perhaps as many as 3.5billion. Beyond then, the Sun will have become so hot that nothing will be able to survive, scientists believe. Ever since it was formed our planet has been at just the right distance from the Sun to make it habitable.Sep 18, 2013"

So what is all the scare mongering with? are they just lying? is it merely a case of environmental gone wrong and it's an attempt to get everyone to stop polluting or over producing as possibly there is a finite amount of resources on the earth?


Humans 'won't make next CENTURY because global warming damage already done' claims author
End of the world: Climate change means 'humans will not live past 2100' | Nature | News | Express.co.uk[/url

[url]http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/07/19/global-warming-will-destroy-the-earth-in-the-end/&refURL=https://www.google.ca/&referrer=https://www.google.ca/
Global Warming Will Destroy The Earth In The End

 

[Tellenbach]

I don't get the fear at all. We have air conditioning and we have hydroponics. We can grow vegetables inside giant warehouses using LED bulbs and drip irrigation. Even if every coastal city flooded, that's just a tiny percentage of livable land.

So what is all the scare mongering with? are they just lying? is it merely a case of environmental gone wrong and it's an attempt to get everyone to stop polluting or over producing as possibly there is a finite amount of resources on the earth?

I think we're being lied to. A whistleblower at the NOAA pretty much admitted that the NOAA's latest paper on climate change was a fraud with political motives.

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’

In an article on the Climate Etc. blog, John Bates, who retired last year as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, accused the lead author of the 2015 NOAA “pausebuster” report of trying to “discredit” the hiatus through “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards.”

In addition, Mr. Bates told the Daily [U.K.] Mail that the report’s author, former NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information director Thomas Karl, did so by “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.”

The reason why climate science is controversial is because these scientists are not using scientific methods.

 

[ceecee]

Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units: On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015


Or, it was 62 degrees (16 Celsius) and it's February 19th. In Michigan. This kind of thing happened about 5 years ago - very unseasonably warm temps in March. Fucked all the crops up. Don't need a scientist to tell me that's a problem.

 

[Blackout]

Is it supposedly...an Armageddon type possibility though?

It's still interesting though that this year there was a huge winter related storm all over the world. Everything is so serious and politically charged in today's world, it's kin of overwhelming. Global warming, globalism, nuclear power, inequality.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units: On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015


Or, it was 62 degrees (16 Celsius) and it's February 19th. In Michigan. This kind of thing happened about 5 years ago - very unseasonably warm temps in March. Fucked all the crops up. Don't need a scientist to tell me that's a problem.

Yeah, it got really warm in February and the cherry trees blossomed early. Then it got cold again and they froze off. That's a normal farming problem, right?

 

[ceecee]

Yeah, it got really warm in February and the cherry trees blossomed early. Then it got cold again and they froze off. That's a normal farming problem, right?

A small warmup then freeze is a normal farming problem. Not weeks of 80 and 90 degree temps in March then into April, which happened in 2012. Is that climate change? Yes. Is it man made? To what degree, I can't say but does anyone really think humans have nothing to do with it at all?

 

[Abendrot]

I don't get the fear at all. We have air conditioning and we have hydroponics. We can grow vegetables inside giant warehouses using LED bulbs and drip irrigation. Even if every coastal city flooded, that's just a tiny percentage of livable land.



I think we're being lied to. A whistleblower at the NOAA pretty much admitted that the NOAA's latest paper on climate change was a fraud with political motives.

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’



The reason why climate science is controversial is because these scientists are not using scientific methods.

Climate scientists are probably under a lot of pressure to publish data that is agreeable to climate change alarmism. I don't find it hard to believe that they would fudge some data, but it is virtually impossible that anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax. Those climate models are scientifically sound, and the basic principles behind anthropomorphic climate change are basically air-tight. Yes, the warming has slowed down over the past decade, and no one really knows why, but there are a lot of theories, and the consensus is that the warming will start up again.

The problem is that the climate is such a complicated system than no-one really knows how much harm (or good, for that matter) a 1 or 3 or 5 degree change in the planet's average temperature will do. My impression is that there is little respectable research on what exactly the consequences of this climate change will be. This is where the bias, alarmism, and political motives come in. I've seen people rant about how climate change is the biggest problem facing the world right now, and then I ask them: Okay, what are the potential consequences of climate change?

They tell me that the threat is rising sea levels (The worst case scenario is a paltry two meters over the next century) and more frequent hurricanes, and they bring up those "poor polar bears." That's too bad, but that doesn't really justify the ~$20-100 trillion dollar investment that the world needs to make to switch over to renewables. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is that we are slowly but surely running out of fossil fuels (whether that takes 30, 60 or 200 years, is another matter), and so we'll have to switch eventually anyway. Since people have a tendency to procrastinate, and politicians can't see more than 4 years into the future, I suppose that climate alarmism can be useful.

 

[Agent Washington]

Probably not armageddon type. More like boiling a frog in the water type so it never leaps out.

Home country, tropical drought. I don't wanna say more than that. It was bad. Not quite as bad as you'd say. Probably liveable next decade or so, but two decades down? We'll be adults or old people. We'll still be here, and it will be even more noticeable. Trends go by small increments per year. Doesn't mean it doesn't add up.

 

[Yuurei]

Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units: On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015


Or, it was 62 degrees (16 Celsius) and it's February 19th. In Michigan. This kind of thing happened about 5 years ago - very unseasonably warm temps in March. Fucked all the crops up. Don't need a scientist to tell me that's a problem.

We had a day in April that was 92 in Seattle.

Up until a about five years ago that didn't even happen every summer.

On that note; the past few summers have lasted from sporadic weeks between March and June and consistantly from July to Mid-October. Last year I went to the beach in October..fucking October! I went swimming and didn't catch pnumonia. It was in the seventies!

I used to love summer and now I hate it because it's been at least 2 months straight of 95+

Fortunatley we've gotten more than enough rain this winter because the past few years it hasn't rained nearly as much as it used to. I'm used to seeing the river behind my house rise and fall with the seasons but last two years it's been about the same year-round.

Yeah, it got really warm in February and the cherry trees blossomed early. Then it got cold again and they froze off. That's a normal farming problem, right?

Oh yeah, the cherry trees. That was pretty wierd. They haven't started to bloom here, which is far more normal. This past fall has been more normal that it has been the past couple years. I hope it will be enough to keep things wet and green for another few warm years if need be.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

There is the issue of atmospheric pollutants, but also sun cycles. Does anyone have information on the effects of sun spots and such on climate? From what I understand, there are several factors acting on the system which makes predictions difficult, however,

 

[Abendrot]

There is the issue of atmospheric pollutants, but also sun cycles. Does anyone have information on the effects of sun spots and such on climate? From what I understand, there are several factors acting on the system which makes predictions difficult, however,

Well, there's this: Solar Cycle Linked to Global Climate, Drives Events Similar to El Nino, La Nina | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

The sun's power output fluctuates by about 0.1% over an eleven year period. This translates to a change in the (equilibrium) temperature of the Earth by about 0.1 degrees, but there is research which suggests that this variability is being amplified by some sort of positive feedback loop. The mechanism suggested involves something about extra heating which produces more rainfall. I've also heard something about the Extreme UV ray output from the sun (which varies by a factor of 10 or more) altering the chemistry of the upper atmosphere.

 

[Tellenbach]

I don't find it hard to believe that they would fudge some data, but it is virtually impossible that anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax.

The scientific process usually starts out with:

1. Hypothesis forming,
2. Experiment to test hypothesis,
3. Data gathering
4. Interpretation of results, and
5. Conclusion.

With climate science, it's become:

1. Conclusion: we know what's right and what's not.,
2. Devise computer models that agree with the conclusion,
3. Shoehorn all empirical data to fit conclusion,
4. Consensus building and Demonize the skeptics.

Those climate models are scientifically sound, and the basic principles behind anthropomorphic climate change are basically air-tight.

Computer modeling isn't data. It's hypothesis testing. The hypothesis might be sound but it's not any good if there is no empirical evidence to support it.

 

[Abendrot]

The scientific process usually starts out with:

1. Hypothesis forming,
2. Experiment to test hypothesis,
3. Data gathering
4. Interpretation of results, and
5. Conclusion.

With climate science, it's become:

1. Conclusion: we know what's right and what's not.,
2. Devise computer models that agree with the conclusion,
3. Shoehorn all empirical data to fit conclusion,
4. Consensus building and Demonize the skeptics.

Computer modeling isn't data. It's hypothesis testing. The hypothesis might be sound but it's not any good if there is no empirical evidence to support it.

What you are describing sounds like more like alchemy than science, and I am genuinely curious as to what degree such factors are at play within the climate science community.

Still, I will argue that the basic principles of climate science are valid for the following reasons:
1. Regardless of the state of climate science today, it began as a valid science, and its basic principles remain unchanged.
2. Climate Science is multidisciplinary, drawings insights from valid branches of science, chiefly thermodynamics from classical physics. Classical Physics has been described as the most perfect of the sciences. This is because it synthesizes empirical observations with deductive reasoning, which allows it to produce predictions with mathematical certitude.
3. Although climate scientists have financial incentives for producing data that is in line with mainstream opinion, if they can produce evidence to disprove the consensus, they will gain fame and publicity and thereby benefit. Thus, there is a limit to the damage that group-think can do to the community's consensus.

Indeed, climate modelling isn't data, but you can't obtain empirical data for future warming. These models have parameters that are derived from empirical data, and the models operate upon thermodynamic theory. So long as the parameters are correct and the theory is applied correctly with the appropriate simplifying assumptions (There is admittedly some room for error here), the predictions cannot be incorrect.

And so, if you are suggesting that the official predictions for the degree of warming due to CO2 are incorrect, this error can only be produced by means of incorrect parameters and/or incorrect application of theory. I think it's reasonable to believe that the warming predicted by the models is somewhat exaggerated (in fact, I gather that this is the opinion of many climate scientists), but your position becomes increasingly tenuous the more your prediction diverges from that of the official consensus. If you go so far as to believe that the entire concept of greenhouse gases and radiative forcing is bunk, you need only look at Venus to find proof that your position is false.

 

[Littleclaypot]

it's already started, baby

 

[Tellenbach]

So long as the parameters are correct and the theory is applied correctly with the appropriate simplifying assumptions (There is admittedly some room for error here), the predictions cannot be incorrect.

Right. If we knew every variable involved in warming, that would be the case, but every current model has been off by a significant amount when compared to actual empirical data. There is no way to know exactly which variables they're missing, so the exercise is mostly pointless.

From Patrick J. Michaels' "Why Climate Models are Failing":

Additionally, over the last 30 years (1984-2013) the suite of 108 climate model runs used in the 2013 compendium of the IPCC produces an average surface warming rate of 2.6 degrees C per century, while the observed value was 1.7 degree C, a considerable difference for so long a period.

I think it's reasonable to believe that the warming predicted by the models is somewhat exaggerated (in fact, I gather that this is the opinion of many climate scientists), but your position becomes increasingly tenuous the more your prediction diverges from that of the official consensus. If you go so far as to believe that the entire concept of greenhouse gases and radiative forcing is bunk, you need only look at Venus to find proof that your position is false.

Where is the graph for CO2 concentration vs temperature? I'd love to see it, even it it's just in a closed container.

 

[Stigmata]

Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units: On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015


Or, it was 62 degrees (16 Celsius) and it's February 19th. In Michigan. This kind of thing happened about 5 years ago - very unseasonably warm temps in March. Fucked all the crops up. Don't need a scientist to tell me that's a problem.

We had a day down here in Texas where it was like 86 degrees this February.

Pretty much this "winter" with the exception of a few days in January, mostly everyone has been walking around in short sleeves and t-shirts -- At some point we have to stop drinking the koolaid and acknowledge that this is abnormal as fuck.

 

[violet_crown]

We had a day down here in Texas where it was like 86 degrees this February.

Pretty much this "winter" with the exception of a few days in January, mostly everyone has been walking around in short sleeves and t-shirts -- At some point we have to stop drinking the koolaid and acknowledge that this is abnormal as fuck.

I've lived in South Central Texas most of my life. We had six tornadoes touch down last night. It's unheard of here.

 

[Betty Blue]

We had the warmest xmas day since circa 1659, when records began. Warmest december overall for 70 years, but i'm unsure of cycles in weather so do not have much to pit it against.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

We can't even get our own shit together and change our ways cuz progress. But let's go colonize other worlds and fuck them up in the meantime.

Building Better Worlds

 

[Yuurei]

We had a day down here in Texas where it was like 86 degrees this February.

Pretty much this "winter" with the exception of a few days in January, mostly everyone has been walking around in short sleeves and t-shirts -- At some point we have to stop drinking the koolaid and acknowledge that this is abnormal as fuck.

A couple years ago I attended a dog show. The host had come up here ( Seattle) from Texan in early march. The host was asked " Isn't it nice to be up here where it's warm and dry instead of Texas with all that miserable rain?" Ten years ago this would have been a joke followed up with " said no one ever." but it was said and it was not a joke.

We can't even get our own shit together and change our ways cuz progress. But let's go colonize other worlds and fuck them up in the meantime.

Building Better Worlds

Do you mean space X and it's obsession with "progress"? As in rather than put their money and scientific minds to work fixing the Earth saying " Oh well, it's fucked. Let's move to mars and start overpopulating and wasting there?" Because I completely agree with that sentiment.