Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change

[GMDino]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/152195/20160420/climate-rises-to-1-5-degrees-celsius-in-march-marks-another-record-in-climate-history.htm

Quote:Climate Rises To 1.5 Degrees Celsius In March, Marks Another Record In Climate History


Climate rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius in March, marking another record in climate history.


More specifically, the said findings signal the 11th straight month that the globe record was considered warm.

"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, March set another heat record for the globe," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) writes.
Clearly, the first three months of 2016 look like it is not gearing toward the December 2015 Paris climate conference goal, which is to keep climate temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.

Climate Temperatures By The Numbers
As per analysis, independent organization Climate Central found that the average global temperatures from January to March was 1.48 degrees Celsius - a number that is very close to the Paris climate goal of 2 degrees Celsius.

In January, the climate temperature was 1.4 degrees Celsius. This was followed by the record-breaking 1.55 degrees Celsius in February, which marks the first time that a temperature exceeded the milestone in any month. March also made a statement with its 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature.

The group based their computations on the average global temperature information by NASA and NOAA..

Climate Central specifically used the baseline data from 1881-1910, which is the earliest period when global temperatures were considered to be at its most reliable.

For comparison, NASA uses data from 1951 to 1980, while NOAA uses the 20th century average.

If NASA's computation would be made as reference, the February and March temperatures would have reached 1.63 degrees Celsius and 1.54 degrees Celsius above industrial rates respectively.

Making computations based on pre-industrial period helps authorities and the public monitor the effectiveness of nations' efforts to maintain global temperatures within the set thresholds.

Where The World Is Headed
Despite the bad start to the year, it does not necessarily mean that the world has already failed to achieve the Paris climate goal. 2016 still has nine months and it is highly probable that temperatures will not exceed the 1.5 degrees Celsius climate-normal from 1881-1910.

"But the hot start for 2016 is a notable symbolic milestone," Climate Central writes.

The past months may serve as a sign of where the world may be headed if emissions continue and actions to curb it effectively will not be put into play. Prompt action and commitment among governments, experts and members of the public is a must, now more than ever.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 07:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not smugly dismissing anything, but Ive read enough about it to know it's a catastrophe waiting to happen. 

Because you only look at the right wing sources that say we should do nothing.

The people I cited are some of the greatest scientific minds of our generation.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-19-2016, 07:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not smugly dismissing anything, but Ive read enough about it to know it's a catastrophe waiting to happen.  Im on my phone right now so I cant really find and link, but it's pretty easy to find.  I'd be happy to have someone find a way to prove it will only have minor side effects because it seems it would work, as long as you don't stop.

I did a Google search and this was the first result.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6369971.stm

From the article:

Quote:Unknown consequences

Nevertheless, the consequences of putting gargantuan quantities of sulphur into the atmosphere as he [Paul Curtzen] proposes are unknown.



It could increase acid rain, or even damage the ozone layer - the very thing Professor Crutzen has dedicated his life to protecting.


Neither does his solution tackle - or offer a way of reducing - the increasing amount of CO2 that is still being emitted.

From reading this article, it seems that if your goal is simply to reduce global temperatures, this would be the way to go. But, this doesn't seem to really address the issues raised from most climate change proponents. However, I'm basing this solely on this article.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-17-2016, 08:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why do you put the word "prove" in quotations.

Are you claiming that it is impossible for science to "prove" anything?  

Yes.  Science doesn't generally "prove" anything, and with respect to climate research that is the correct insinuation.  Again, if you understood how scientific research actually works you wouldn't be asking this question.

Rather, scientific research generally demonstrates that their hypothesis is very unlikely to result from chance.  In technical terms, the conclusions have "power".  Climate Change research generally can't reach that hurdle, a hurdle which (by the way) is generally rejected as worthy of investment in fields such as pharma, bio, physics, etc. (they require much higher power than CC has been able to reach).

[JustWinBaby]

(04-19-2016, 10:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not in the long run. Climate change, whether a result of our own hands or not, will eventually lead to the extinction of mankind on Earth.

Based on what logic?  Do you actually believe warming is a linear trend and we'll heat things up to 130+ degrees?!?  We're going to run out of fossil fuels before we warm even 2 more degrees (assuming we're the main cause of warming).
The worst predictions (which have repeatedly been shown to be horribly inaccurate) don't really say that.  Do you even know how much land is lost if all the ice and snow on Earth melts?  
We already farm the desert quite well.  The ACTUAL rate of warming (not the horribly inaccurate predicted rates) isn't going to be a problem.  Not to mention, diminishing returns of warming from higher levels of CO2 in the air...but I digress.

[Belsnickel]

(04-24-2016, 05:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Based on what logic?  Do you actually believe warming is a linear trend and we'll heat things up to 130+ degrees?!?  We're going to run out of fossil fuels before we warm even 2 more degrees (assuming we're the main cause of warming).
The worst predictions (which have repeatedly been shown to be horribly inaccurate) don't really say that.  Do you even know how much land is lost if all the ice and snow on Earth melts?  
We already farm the desert quite well.  The ACTUAL rate of warming (not the horribly inaccurate predicted rates) isn't going to be a problem.  Not to mention, diminishing returns of warming from higher levels of CO2 in the air...but I digress.

By the logic that there is evidence that there have been climates on Earth inhospitable to us, that would prohibit agriculture, and a number of other complications and that eventually these climates will occur again in the lifecycle of the planet.

[tigerseye]

I haven't read all the posts, but aren't the poles (pillars) of earth actually moving right now and might that have something to do with some of this. I don't know alot about the subject, just bringing up a thought.

For all we know our leaders know exactly what is going on (or causing it for that matter) to manipulate us into doing what they actually want or passing laws they are trying to get in place for some other reason. ($$$$) Who knows, they lie so much.

We should do what we can in our control but for all we know it could be one of earth's cycles.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2016, 05:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yes.  Science doesn't generally "prove" anything, and with respect to climate research that is the correct insinuation.  Again, if you understood how scientific research actually works you wouldn't be asking this question.

Rather, scientific research generally demonstrates that their hypothesis is very unlikely to result from chance.  In technical terms, the conclusions have "power".  Climate Change research generally can't reach that hurdle, a hurdle which (by the way) is generally rejected as worthy of investment in fields such as pharma, bio, physics, etc. (they require much higher power than CC has been able to reach).

I still am not getting your point.

What exact level are yiou talking abiout when you say "hurdle".

It seems to me you are saying that we can only invest when we reach a  certain level of certainty, but then you say it is scientifically impossible to reach that level.

In other words, what would have to happen in order for you to be convinced that we should invest in preventing or preparing for global warming?  

[Beaker]

(04-24-2016, 10:46 AM)tigerseye Wrote: We should do what we can in our control but for all we know it could be one of earth's cycles.

Thats always been the point. We can control the amount of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere.