Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7
Send Topic Print
4 conclusions (Read 13656 times)
skippy
Ex Member


4 conclusions
Aug 1st, 2009 at 8:59am
 
"Fifteen of Australia's top climate experts explain how we know humans are altering the atmosphere and why we must act now.

Around the world, thousands of scientists have devoted their professional lives to studying the climate. Not centrally organised, they sometimes build temporary affiliations but they remain scientists throughout – that is, they are independent, constantly challenge each other and are committed to searching for truth through objective, independently verifiable evidence.

Overwhelmingly, this evidence has led to four conclusions. The first is that the world is warming. The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950. The warming varies among decades because of natural fluctuations but the overall trend has been inexorably upward.

Warming is evident in other indicators, such as rising sea levels and reduced sea-ice and snow cover. Of these, the most important measure is the extra heat in the oceans, which is steadily rising. Claims that climate change has reversed since 1998 are misrepresentations of the full data.

The second conclusion is that the dominant cause of the warming since about 1950 is the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases released by human activities, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important.

This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming trend.

Other contributors include changes in the sun’s output associated with sunspots and solar flares, and volcanic dust. However, if these were solely responsible for temperature changes since 1850, the world should have cooled over the past half-century rather than warming at an increasing rate.

The third conclusion is that warming will increase in future, if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases maintain their present paths. "Business as usual" scenarios for future emissions lead to likely global temperature increases of up to six degrees above present temperatures by 2100.

These are dramatic temperature increases, which would be accompanied by major disruptions to food supplies, river flows and water availability, significant and ongoing rises in sea level (of up to about a metre by 2100 and potentially metres over longer times), disease threats, disruptions to ecosystems including the extinction of many species, and social and geopolitical destabilisation.

The fourth conclusion is that climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries, because of the massive heat stores in the world’s oceans. Even if CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilised today at their present levels, a further warming of at least 0.6 degrees would inevitably follow (on top of the 0.8 degrees observed since 1850) and sea-level rise would continue for centuries to millenniums.

These four conclusions have been known and agreed among thousands of independent climate scientists for more than a decade. However, new findings suggest that the situation is, if anything, more serious than the assessment of just a few years ago.

The heightened concern among climate scientists arises from a growing realisation that climate change can be accelerated beyond current predictions by reinforcing "climate feedbacks", which contribute to climate change and are accelerated as it occurs, thus causing climate change to feed on itself. When these feedbacks are sufficiently strong they become "climate tipping points" which can flip the climate into a new state with essentially no way to recover.

Several feedbacks are of immediate concern. Interactions between climate and the earth’s carbon cycle (the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, the land and the oceans) will act to accelerate climate change if sinks do not keep pace with emissions (as is already happening) and/or if previously stable carbon stores are released to the atmosphere under climate change, for example by the thawing of carbon-rich frozen soils.

Accelerated polar warming will cause loss of ice and a consequent darkening of the surface, leading to more heat absorption and faster warming. Atmospheric concentrations of aerosols (tiny particulates) are likely to decrease in future as nations improve air quality, leading to accelerated warming as the cooling effect of aerosols is reduced.

Oceans are becoming more acidic as a consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. When CO2 concentrations exceed levels to be reached by 2035 under business-as-usual emissions scenarios, there will be severe disruptions to marine ecosystems (including the Great Barrier Reef and ocean food chains), which will endanger fisheries and weaken the uptake of CO2 by oceans.

Temperature rises of two to three degrees (or higher) carry a high risk of irreversible decay of the Greenland ice sheet from surface warming alone, leading to a sea level rise of up to about seven metres. Destabilisation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause a further few metres of sea-level rise."

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #1 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 9:05am
 
Continued from above-

A climate conference in Copenhagen in March concluded that societies were highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above two degrees will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

All of these concerns are firmly grounded in science. They have led the great majority of climate scientists to conclude (paraphrasing the summary of the Copenhagen conference) that rapid, sustained and effective emissions reductions are required to avoid ‘‘dangerous climate change’’, regardless of how it is defined.

Higher future emissions increase the risk of crossing climate tipping points and they increase the likelihood that the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation will be higher.

This article was written by Michael Raupach and John Church, CSIRO; David Griggs, Amanda Lynch and Neville Nicholls, Monash University; Nathan Bindoff, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre; Matthew England and Andy Pitman, University of NSW; Ann Henderson-Sellers and Lesley Hughes, Macquarie University; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland; Roger Jones, Victoria University; David Karoly, University of Melbourne; and Tony McMichael and Will Steffen, Australian National University."

This is what Australia's climate change experts say, anyone think they know more than the EXPERTS?
.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #2 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 10:39am
 
Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ.

1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years.
2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming.
3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path.
4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #3 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 10:59am
 
Grendel wrote on Aug 1st, 2009 at 10:39am:
Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ.

1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years.
2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming.
3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path.
4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.[/quote

I think I'll stick to the main stream experts rather than the questionable ones who dispute the conclusions of the majority.

[quote]All of these concerns are firmly grounded in science. They have led the great majority of climate scientists to conclude (paraphrasing the summary of the Copenhagen conference) that rapid, sustained and effective emissions reductions are required to avoid ‘‘dangerous climate change’’, regardless of how it is defined.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2009 at 11:04am by N/A »  
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #4 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 12:12pm
 
They are experts in their field as qualified or more than the persons you just quoted.

And they come from all over the world and from many different organisations.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #5 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 12:23pm
 
Well Skippy, you don't really have to fret too much about denialist "experts", they have a scientific name for them also, they are called "CRANKS".

Every group of ratbag conspirinut/denialist/crackpots, always attracys it's share of disenchanted "experts" to trumpet their paranoid delusions.

We see the pattern repeated, with every wacko group, from ufo experts, to moon landing hoax, experts, to 9/11 experts, and that is why we try to not let these denialists falsely ascribe any validation to what is totally refuted bunkum, from their so called experts.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a personality type that lkes to think of itself as a group of mavericks, who alone can see the truth, that the rest of the world is too stupid to realise.
Of course this is delusional, hence we see a fair proportion who share multiple delusions, as it is in their nature to be attracted to that kind of thing.

So we cannot ever hope to convince them logically, because they do not use logic, as evidenced by the way they repeat the refuted lies over, and over, we just have to keep putting the real information out there, so that they do not suck others into their paranoid world of secret societies and cabals of scientists performing global cons.

Talk about your wackos, I bet they would even vote for extremist, ultra nationalist politicians, lol.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #6 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 12:36pm
 
Quote:
They are experts in their field as qualified or more than the persons you just quoted


REALLY Roll Eyes like who? names and numbers.


Quote:
And they come from all over the world and from many different organisations.


Yes and there in lies the problem, they do come from many different organisations, most of which know sweet fa about climate change, but have ulterior motives for pushing their lies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #7 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 2:18pm
 
Why don't you google some as I've already posted them all over these topics.

It's not like I just cut and pasted an article for the SMH by some unknowns from the CSIRO.

Are you inferring they don't exist?  Cheesy

You live in denial.

See Sorens's article for starters.
Or is that what made you start this topic.   Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #8 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 2:55pm
 
Quote:
See Sorens's article for starters.
Or is that what made you start this topic.    

Quote:
Fifteen of Australia's top climate experts explain how we know humans are altering the atmosphere and why we must act now.

No, I stared this thread because 15 of Australia's top experts in the field decided it was necessary to try and explain what is occurring in plain English and to show Australians just how REAL this is.
It seems one or two people have a problem understanding plain English tho.

It shouldn't be a surprise a thread on climate change is on the environment board, at least this one has the names of the experts and shows that they are not just people with a science degree but people with expertise in this area,, unlike most of the confusionalist "experts"
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #9 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 3:01pm
 
Oh and the others (more than 15 BTW) with a different opinion already mentioned as in Soren's article with just as good if not better credentials should be ignored...  why?

DWMT
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2009 at 3:22pm by Grendel »  
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #10 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 3:22pm
 
A chemical reaction
Thursday, 30th July 2009

When the worm finally turns, it really gets itself into a flat-out spin. More and more scientists have just about had it up to here with the rubbish being put out as the ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming. Marc Morano reports how members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) have risen in revolt against the group’s editor-in-chief -- with demands for his removal -- after an editorial appeared claiming ‘the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.’

The editorial claimed the ‘consensus’ view was growing ‘increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.’ The editor now admits he is ‘startled’ by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members.

Poor bewildered soul. He really thought he had written what was undeniably the case. Here are some examples of that ‘negative reaction’ he produced:

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: ‘Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?’

William E. Keller wrote: ‘However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.’

Morano points out that this revolt is but the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming:

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly ‘published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.’ An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – sp@m – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.’ 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009

And so on, and on.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2009 at 4:04pm by Grendel »  
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #11 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 3:33pm
 
Grendel wrote on Aug 1st, 2009 at 3:01pm:
Oh and the others (more than 15 BTW) with a different opinion already mentioned as in Soren's article with just as good if not better credentials should be ignored...  why?

DWMT

I'm glad you brought that up and thank you for re posting it.

There are only two "scientists named in the article, as is so often the case with confusionalist propaganda they refer to "many scientists" but don't name them.

Quote:
after a group of 54 prominent physicists


The 54 faceless men.

Unlike those faceless men the climate change experts in my article name themselves.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #12 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 3:48pm
 
I suggest you read the article again and maybe do some extra research too eh...  
Or maybe it's just you cant count?

You know as well as I do that many credible accredited published etc climate experts with degrees etc, disagree with your preferred opinion.

Stop lying to yourself and everyone else..

DWMT.  Cheesy

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #13 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 4:09pm
 
I see they lead with the "Emeritus" Professor again, perhaps the ennui of retirement drives them into the arms of contrarians, but it certainly does not endear them to working scientists, whose real work is under continual attack from this crackpot community.

Cranks, and crackpots, extremists and headcases, these are the vangaurd of the denialist army, and if they ever do have any worthwhile contribution to make, of ANY scientific value, then I am certain the real scientists will gladly endorse their findings, after they have been reviewed by more than nutcase bloggers.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: 4 conclusions
Reply #14 - Aug 1st, 2009 at 4:11pm
 
Quote:
You know as well as I do that many credible accredited published etc climate experts with degrees etc, disagree with your preferred opinion.



No I dont, what I know is that the great majority of climate experts keep telling a different story to the one you believe.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7
Send Topic Print