Climate change runs in cycles; it gets hot, it gets cold.

It can be influenced by humans by not to a significant extent.

Everything that's happening and has been hapenning since forever, since always, would still be hapenning even if every man and woman in the world used only solar panels and had a windmill in their backyard.

Myesyats wrote:I don't think you have any clue about the fact that everything is politically influenced nowadays.

[...]

I find it amusing how you called yourself a "scientist".

Yes, I do have a clue about this, it is my profession. No, I don't find it amusing to call myself a "scientist".

a bit of background to show how out of your depth you are.:

Myesyats wrote:Why did global warming happen in the Middle Ages without any man made CO2 emissions? Because it's a natural process that runs in cycles.

January 2013: Record-breaking 7 meters of snow in Tokyo
Bangladesh: Record breaking all time lowest temperatures.
March 2013: All time lowest temperatures in Finland
Frozen vodka in Russia
The lake of Michigan in Chicago frozen like in 1875.

This is your global WARMING?

I understand what the problem is now, you read the title "global warming" in some headline and decided you were an expert in the matter. You don't understand what these words mean or what you are talking about.

Rincon educated as f

Educated AF yet can't answer a simple question.

Why was the average temperature significantly higher in the Middle Ages than it is now, in the industrial age of widespread CO2 emission where global warming is said to be destroying the planet.

Myesyats wrote:Educated AF yet can't answer a simple question.

Why was the average temperature significantly higher in the Middle Ages than it is now, in the industrial age of widespread CO2 emission where global warming is said to be destroying the planet.

You hadn't asked this question.

Worry not myesyats. I haven't lost all faith in you, I'm writing a more detailed explanation of the basics of global warming and how energy consumption affect us.

Part 1, the basics

------------

First things first, the reason we care about global warming is not that we don't like it just a little bit hotter. It's the effects related to it, what it could mean to us and to our ecosystem.

I am going to assume that you don't deny local temperature changes (heat transfer). If you turn on a radiator its surroundings will get hot. If you burn gasoline in your car, your engine will get hot. This energy comes from the materials we burn, their chemical energy. When we use a chemical (combustion engines) or electrochemical (fuel cells) reaction, we release the energy from the material by changing its state and, hopefully, use most of it for mechanical or electrical work.

The big problem is that no process is 100% efficient, like the light bulbs! A lot of that energy doesn't go into useful work but is lost to the atmosphere. In what form is it lost? heat. Pretty much everything we do generates for the surroundings. Even when we take heat out of a system (when we cool things), we end up heating the surroundings more and end up with a positive temperature difference.

This is why engineers try so hard to refine processes (like your car) to make it more efficient and waste less fuel. To get this fuel we need to extract oil and refine into gasoline or diesel, which costs us a lot of energy. The last thing we want is to waste the fruit of our labor heating up the hood of your car.

The heat we produce every time we transform materials goes into the gases in the atmosphere (O2, N2, CO2, etc.). The gases heat up and clash with other materials and heat those up, and so the temperature is dissipated in the planet.

Different materials require different amounts of energy to increase their temperature, this is called specific heat. Its the amount of energy (Joules) that a gram of a substance needs to increase 1 degree. Luckily for us, water has a huge specific heat! so most of the heat we produce is absorbed by the oceans, and thus the temperature is regulated.

Now, the oceans soak up a lot of it, but eventually as we keep pumping out heat their temperature rises. There is a second important concept, the latent heat of fusion. For ice to melt (solid matter to change its state to liquid), it requires a large amount of extra energy. This energy goes into changing the state of matter, and NOT into increasing its temperature. This is important, glaciers soak up a giant amount of energy before they melt so that ice can be converted to water all while remaining at 0 degrees. What it means is that the temperature will not change significantly while energy is pumped to melt ice. The oceans and the glaciers are a giant buffer keeping temperature somewhat constant. Until they can't anymore.

--------

This^ is thermodynamics. I truly hope you are not arguing humanity's understanding of thermodynamics, physics and chemistry. There is no way around these laws.

Sweet christmas

Part 2, but what about the middle ages?!

-------

We don't really know everything about the middle ages. We (humans) didn't have the tools, understanding or interest to log temperatures across the planet. The fact that we don't know exactly what happened doesn't mean we are totally blind though. Scientists can estimate the approximate temperatures of the past using a variety of indirect methods. So we look at the state of something (trees, coral, rocks, etc.) that survives over a long period of time and search for a property that is affected by temperature. If we can correlate the property with temperature, and corroborate it with other points of measurement then we form an estimate.

What do these estimates say? they tell us that during the middle ages there were hot spots around the North Atlantic. The problem is (to the dismay of many) that the planet is not just the North Atlantic regions. Regional variations exist, that is why today you can have a place with a random frozen lake that never used to freeze, while on the other side there is country going through a heat wave. So back in the middle ages there were regions of alternating local maxima in temperatures, while the rest compensated to bring an average temperature that is actually cooler than today.

That's right, all evidence we have, including uncertainties, points towards the fact the Medieval Warm Period had a global average temperatures lower than today! it is only higher in certain regions, which doesn't mean much on the large scale.

So, in the middle ages things cooled down after a couple of centuries, why should we care now? won't the same happen?

Probably not. The reason being that 1 hundred years ago we began burning everything to extract energy (see part 1). So in a very accelerated manner, we are removing the planet's ability to self regulate its temperature (remember the oceans, the glaciers, and the heat transfer). This means that from now on, with or without our input, the planet will have a harder time bringing temperatures down in a comfortable manner. Thats the big problem! This isn't speculation, this is thermodynamics. We extracted the chemical energy of so much matter (wood, coal, natural gas, oil, etc.) and released it into the air.

------

There you go @myesyats . By the way, I'm not getting paid by a witty business man . Let me know if you see one, I could use the money. Also, the clever business men of today probably didn't pay Maxwell, Dirac or Newton when they figured out thermodynamics.

These two posts ignore the role of CO2, greenhouse gases, industrial waste, etc. I figure you will believe less and less of what I write as we move away from fundamental physics. So I didn't mention it, but I can if you want.

The world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available.


For the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html

There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.

The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.

He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’

There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher.


What the F are you talking about, Mr Scientist?

Jesus christ man at least read the posts. It literally says in the end there:

rincon wrote:These two posts ignore the role of CO2, greenhouse gases, industrial waste, etc. [...] . So I didn't mention it, but I can if you want.

You see, I ("Mr Scientist" ) don't get my data from Daily Mail. That's a no go for us. When we want to cite sources in scientific journals we don't get the luxury of using the Daily Mail. We (sadly) have to read scientific publications which are a lot less fun and sensationalist that tabloids but provide actual proof and backing.

I don't understand your first line there, you say that the world has warmed up by X amount in the last Y years. Exactly! so we agree!.

Now you are rolling back from the middle ages to 450 million years ago, an ice age, and directly correlating it with CO2 levels. Things are not that simple, this is not something to be immediately understood in 5 minutes of research.

I took the time to explain the basics but I'm not sure that you are actually willing to read and listen outside of your preconceived opinion.

rincon wrote:I don't understand your first line there, you say that the world has warmed up by X amount in the last Y years. Exactly! so we agree!

Yes, I agree that the world is warming up, I'm just questioning human contribution in that matter which, I think, is insignificant.

Emission of CO2 caused by humans is not a main reason why the globe is warming up.

“While climate change does exists, it is cyclical and man’s role is very limited…evidence for the need to ‘fight global warming’ is unfounded.” – Andrey Illarionov, former Senior Advisor to Putin

How can anyone who really studies climate believe in human-caused climate change unless they blindly adopt it like people do religions?

Myesyats wrote:“While climate change does exists, it is cyclical and man’s role is very limited…evidence for the need to ‘fight global warming’ is unfounded.” – Andrey Illarionov, former Senior Advisor to Putin

How can anyone who really studies climate believe in human-caused climate change unless they blindly adopt it like people do religions?

Isn't this ironic. We (scientists) research about it, we conduct experiments, we gather and analyze the data, and we overwhelmingly agree. But no, people in politics (you know, the ones with agendas) and people who have never studied the subject, are the ones who know whats up.

Who is the blind one? who is the one adopting a position like its done with religion?

Its funny you bring up religion because science is the opposite of it. But you go against it.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Adit wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

What low end jobs is globalization taking away from the low class of America?

Thats a talking point that a bunch of poor people, resentful of the fact that a negro(Lets be honest and call it what it was), was holding the highest office in the land hung on to to try to give their view legitimacy. If you have been living in this country centuries, and your job can be taken by a refugee with no english skills off a boat then you already have played yourself.

Liberals won the election too. By millions of votes in the end.

See this is the attitude that I absolutely hate about the leftists. They thinks everybody can get a college degree and become skilled worker... It doesn't work like that. Labour piramid makes sure that many people in every country will remain with out college degree especially in a free market no welfare state like U.S.

But for the leftists anyone who can't code Java deserves his fate and should be left to compete with the incoming refugees who obviously is no threat to the high end jobs. A refugee with one year vocational training will be directly competing with the lower class .

Like I said no wonder the college going population lost including the entire media. Their head is so far up in their ass they can only see their own shit.

Has nothing to do with degrees. There are skilled trades and apprenticeships available to them.

People just wanna be lazy and have their built in factory/coal job that dad had. They don't want to better themselves, and they will eat that cake.

Here is a Japanese mother truth:

"If a refugee coming off a boat is a threat to your job, then you are A FAILURE

DONT
BE
A
FAILURE"

The streets in America are paved with gold. Just work for it. The mexican picking fruit, in 100 degree weather is.

Millenials want the world to be fair, but it isnt. You aren't guaranteed a job, and keeping people out because you don't want to compete is not a real policy. Whether or not we let in Everybody on your block or not, I'm gonna be a superstar. Because I'm that mean Asian bastard. You know me. The doctor, the engineer, the hustler on the street corner. I own the finish line.

Spoiler:

Again No wonder Trump won despite the media and the college going population strongly believing otherwise. You and all of the left are ignorant and self righteous. India and china produces over a million engineers , if half of them were given refugee in U.S then the coding wages will drastically go down and then the shit will hit the fan.......but that scenario will not happen and refugees cant code so lets bring them in


The leftists and liberals will be pro refugee as long as they are not taking their jobs   Globalization already destroyed the lower class americans and increased the market for high end workers (means more jobs there and more wages) ...now the college going kids wants more lower class here and then says ''if you cant compete''......no body signed up for competing for too little resources among too much people.

Also look at all these lefties including Mclewic and Betty la fa saying nothing about the australian refugees being deported to US. Their rationale is selective and absolutely opportunistic. They represent only one part of the population and are dismissive and ignorant towards the other part.

I don't go against science.

Climate change is a thing but it has ALWAYS been a thing, waaay before humans started causing CO2 emission on a great scale.

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”

Why are you trying to fool me?

Trying to fool you? be consistent for once in your life. You asked me a question, I very thoroughly answered it. Then you change the question and ask why I fooled you. I invite you to find something that was wrong in my posts, please do. I will be open to make a correction because I'm not trying to fool anyone.

That's the problem right there. You think everyone is out there trying to fool you so you fall back on quotes that confirm your preconceived opinion. It seems like you never had any intention to accept any new information. I was trying to help you understand a topic that you don't.

I did not change anything.

My claim is the same from the start: Climate is changing and human contribution is irrelevant, insignificant.

Cars, factories, average Joes warming their houses with coal --- CO2 emissions caused by humans are insignificant compared to naturally produced CO2 hence man-made global warming is a "hoax".

Stay ignorant

The climate has changed throughout the Earth's history, well before humans evolved...

I think that burning of fossil fuels and other activities causing emission of CO2 can be minimalized well before they actually start being a legit threat to Earth.

By that time we will probably evolve a new form of life on a different planet, who knows what the future holds

Just want to give one last comment. The scientific community doesn't even care about the discussion of whether or not climate change is real and a threat to our living condition that happens in the media and with the masses. This is an outdated topic that's already settled.

People might as well be arguing against evolution or gravity, nobody pays attention. The bulk of the research is not to keep proving the same thing over and over again. Everyone is just trying to find solutions to improve the crap that we already do, making things more efficient, develop functional materials and carbon capture and conversion.

Well, there are lot of science facts that were proven wrong, just saying

Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon.

Do you agree/acknowledge that fact?

It is estimated that 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made.

Why are the 4% so significant?

Explain it to me like I'm 5 years old, should be an easy task for such a highly educated person.

Myesyats wrote:I did not change anything.

My claim is the same from the start: Climate is changing and human contribution is irrelevant, insignificant.

Cars, factories, average Joes warming their houses with coal --- CO2 emissions caused by humans are insignificant compared to naturally produced CO2 hence man-made global warming is a "hoax".

I will go even more basic than rincon, to Trump supporter level   .
All matter consists of atoms/ molecules (according to the current theories). They move at a certain velocity all the time. Any moving object has got kinetic energy E=m*v²/2. The temperature describes how fast an element is moving => how much energy it has got. If an element is completly still, its kinetic energy is zero. Cold => little energy, Warm => lots of energy.
Most of our daily energy comes through radiation into the earth atmosphere. During the night, we would freeze to death if not for oceans. Oceans warm up slowly/ conserve energy. During the night they slowly give the energy away through the air (faster molecules clash with slower ones => faster molecules become slowler, slower ones faster hence energy transfer).
Focile energy sources have the energy conserved in their chemical bond. Once released, one part inevitably goes into the atmosphere (heat). The surplus of energy is absorbed by oceans. Oceans give or absorbe energy at a certain rate. They keep the climate more or less stable but over time they should get warmer in general. Now, water in ice form needs a significant amount of energy to transform it into water again. Basicaly, the ice on poles melt. The resulting water masses increase the energy regulation capacity of the oceans because the oceans get bigger but more water also means faster melting ice.
At some point, rincon mentioned, there is no going back. We would need to cool down the oceans to get the ice to grow back. Have fun with that

Ok, I'll give it one more try.

Lets quickly get this out of the way first, the satellite picture thing. I haven't checked (youo don't include links), but there are plenty of reasons why this might be. I'm sure that the institute that took these pictures has an explanation for this when they analyzed the data. Two very quick example explanations without knowing where this info is coming from:

1. Respiration. Trees and plants output CO2 during respiration. There are more trees in the amazon than anywhere else.
2. Our atmosphere is not static. Everything affects everything else. Remember when Chernobyl happened in Ukraine and northern Norway got hit hard by radiation? same thing.

Now that's out of the way. Yes scientific facts are proven wrong, that is the very reason why science works. They are not proven wrong by politicians, or activists, or advisers, or by the media. Tabloids, magazines and even newspapers have a total of 0 effect on experimental data. Believe me, it would make a researcher's career if he could definitively prove global warming is false. He'd get crazy rich and we could all sleep easier at night. It would be great. Sadly such paradigm shifting findings are not common, and until proven otherwise, we must act to the best of our knowledge.

----

Onto the CO2 thing. You never actually answer my questions though, lets see this time. Like I said earlier, follow the thread of your argument.

You say that 96% of the CO2 comes from natural sources, and only 4% is man made. OK. Let's see where that takes us.

There are a number of things that can interact with CO2 on earth, chiefly water and plants. Animals obviously interact with CO2 but they produce it (breathing) and don't really do anything to remove it. What happens with the plants? photosynthesis and respiration, opposite processes that uptake and release CO2, there is some wiggle room there in the amounts that can be processed so that's good. Its finite though, they release it, they uptake it, its necessary and balanced.

So we have water, CO2 is able to dissolve in water. When that happens, carbonic acid is formed. We don't want that. A lot of lifeforms depend on a certain pH (including us). When we have acidification of bodies of water and rain we run into consequences that we don't need. But the ocean is large so it takes in a lot. Not an infinite amount though. CO2 has a finite solubility (like everything else) and it reduces the pH. A lower pH in turn reduces the solubility. If you follow this, quickly you saturate your solution and that's it. No more CO2 dissolved. (obviously this over large amounts of time).

Just as the oceans are large, they are old. They are not empty of CO2, they are at equilibrium with the atmosphere. This regulates all the ecological processes associated with CO2. There is a certain concentration in the water, at equilibrium with the partial pressure of CO2 in the air, and everything goes according to plan. When we add more by burning carbon then we are changing the system. You see 4% as small, why? this is not a rhetorical question, what about your understanding of ecology tells you that an extra 4% is not significant?

No balance is infinitely flexible, at some point you will upset it and change a system. When do you believe that is going to happen? Are you willing to test the limit, if not then whats your point?

The only answer to what you pose must then be: no matter how much CO2 we pump out, it won't significantly affect anything. This is very, very wrong. There is no shortage of evidence and experiments to show that aerobic organisms like us and most others on earth cannot survive past certain levels.

The problem with CO2 is not a direct proportionality of CO2 = heat. The heat is one of the consequences.

This all hinges on the fact that you accept that CO2 doesn't magically disappear (nothing does).

So then, if it doesn't disappear, if animals just compound on the problem, if plants operate roughly like a closed carbon loop (with a positive bias), and if oceans have a finite capacity to dissolve it with adverse consequence and ruled by an equilibrium, where does our extra CO2 go? and wherever it goes, what does it do? every % matters when there is no exit plan.

@babun knows whats up

I know how this process works Babun, but yeah, the ice on poles is totally melting!

Throwback to the day when a group of scientists went on a cruise to prove that the ice there is melting and had to be rescued because they got trapped, listen closely my fellow companions, YES they got trapped in record-level Atlantic ice

http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-scientists-still-trapped-in-record-level-antarctic-ice/

"Level of water in Oceans is rising by 2mm every year"

you should ask polar bears about this, they don't seem to complain about the shortage of ice