Now its Global cooling or rather Solar cooling.

[owiecc]

A skeptic climate catastrophe scientists has much more difficult to get funds.

If by a skeptic you mean denier then it is good that they don't get funds. Biased researchers shouldn't get money. We don't need another study proving AGW.

[G7PSK]

At the risk of repeating myself this is new research into the suns magnetic field or rather magnetic fields as it has been found that there are two main fields both with about eleven year periods but slightly out of sync with each other. It is down to whether they are in alignment or opposing each other that regulates the solar output.They are coming up to an opposing period so the magnetic field cancel that is the concern here.

 http://nam2015.org/index.php/press-releases/64-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

[M4trix]

If the polar ice gaps melt, then technically we will be out of the Ice Age completely.

What about the sea level then? I don't want to live in a rusty tanker like those in Waterworld ! 

[zapta]

A skeptic climate catastrophe scientists has much more difficult to get funds.

If by a skeptic you mean denier then it is good that they don't get funds. Biased researchers shouldn't get money. We don't need another study proving AGW.

People like you destroy science.

[MikeW]

Regardless of any technical scientific debate, I think it comes down to this:

Do you really think that suddenly releasing massive amounts of anything into an ecosystem is not going  to have an effect?

Unlikely.

What those effects are? Who knows. Will they be good? I'd be surprised.

Are we really releasing massive amounts of stuff or just negligible quantities of anything? Harder question to answer?

Should we take the risk? probably not.

[tom66]

I'll be the first to admit that what will -actually- happen when global temperatures rise by 2-3 degrees is difficult to determine to any degree of accuracy.

That the world temperature is rising since the burning of fossil fuels is not really debateable in the same way as gravity is not really debateable, there are thousands of temperature sensors and satellite measurements that confirm this. To suggest that a conspiracy of scientists could somehow manage to correlate all data strongly in one direction with the same magnitude is bordering on insane. Very few point show a consistent decline (which could be local minima or climate effects; it's hard to tell), and the statistical significance of the brief pause is very much debateable, if one even exists at all. The rise in temperature is almost certainly caused by humans, because all of the known other sources either appear to be approximately neutral, or declining in temperature contribution. There is a nice Bloomberg BusinessWeek infographic about this, it's a bit hand-wavy, but it still gives a nice general idea of the potential sources and net contributions:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Now it could turn out that a 2-3C rise would be relatively minor. Perhaps we will see an increase in flooding or extreme weather, but nothing we have not been able to cope with before. It could be, alternatively, really, really bad. Especially if we see some ocean acidifcation effects entirely independent of world temperature - this would be something like taking the food chain out from underneath our feet and could cause an ecological catastrophe on a scale never seen in human times.

I am not a climatologist so I will not pretend to understand the risk factors here. But I do think it is *incredibly* short sighted to say that we cannot have a significant effect on our environment by burning enormous quantities of fuel produced over 100 million years, in just 300 years. We've managed to do a lot of damage so far, the Earth is not immutable.

[mtdoc]

It is very likely, due to positive feedback cycles, that a rise of 2-3 degrees C will mean a rise far beyond that.

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

Part of the problem is the rate at which the increase is occurring. It will be difficult for ecosystems to adapt fast enough. We are already in the middle of the sixth great extinction.

One thing for certain, we're conducting a huge science experiment on the planet and based on current knowlegde, it is very likely that if we continue to conduct it (which we will), it will blow up in our faces.

[zapta]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

[miguelvp]

I think that's a typo and it's supposed to say obsess instead of obese

Then again, they are probably related.
 

[EEVblog]

A skeptic climate catastrophe scientists has much more difficult to get funds.

If by a skeptic you mean denier then it is good that they don't get funds. Biased researchers shouldn't get money. We don't need another study proving AGW.

People like you destroy science.

+1

[tom66]

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

"Breaking News: Obesity caused by Fossil Fuel usage! May also cause Global Warming!  Scientists have discovered that obesity is more frequent in countries where people have easy access to food and motorised transport. It is not yet fully understood how obese people contribute to climate change and global warming but scientists are investigating the link between correlation and causation as we speak. Results expected at 9."

[Halcyon]

[Mechanical Menace]

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

Humans are only medium game, like deer.

[mtdoc]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

One of the great things about this forum (unlike most places on the web) is the high level of scientific literacy and critical thinking exhibited by forum members. But sometimes.. Not so much ...

On the other hand maybe it was meant as a joke...

[LabSpokane]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

One of the great things about this forum (unlike most places on the web) is the high level of scientific literacy and critical thinking exhibited by forum members. But sometimes.. Not so much ...

On the other hand maybe it was meant as a joke...

Actually, that's a very accurate statement since food abundance has almost a 1:1 correlation with fossil fuel use. It was ironically funny, but is still essentially correct.

[monksod]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers? I agree a lot of "climate change" stuff is alarmist, but I also think there is a lot of propaganda from the reactionary fossil-fuel monopolies... I don't see the "erratic weather" everyone goes on about, in actual fact I'm seeing cold winters & hot summers - isn't this how it's mean to be? Lol. I don't like the oil/petrochemical industries & no doubt they & modern society in general are doing a lot of damage to the planet... but are these things steering us into a Venus-like "greenhouse" furnace? Lol, I dunno. I don't think anybody does. It's all just a vehicle for people to play out their idiotic "left" vs "right" ideological melodramas, methinks... ha...

In other news I was just reading about the new CSIRO scientific research ship, the RV Investigator, which hopefully will be doing a whole lot of oceanographic & atmospheric science in years to come & no doubt will accumulate a lot of solid data to answer our questions about climate? There is a very cool interactive "virtual tour" of the whole ship here - http://www.csiro.au/RV-Investigator-virtual-tour/rv_investigator.html?html5=prefer

[zapta]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers?

This is not easy because this topic is heavily politicised but you can look around for sources that seems to have a honest and open minded attempt to look at reality. Also,  ignore intimidation, it's just noise.

Another option is to wait a few more years as things get clearer.

[mtdoc]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

One of the great things about this forum (unlike most places on the web) is the high level of scientific literacy and critical thinking exhibited by forum members. But sometimes.. Not so much ...

On the other hand maybe it was meant as a joke...

Actually, that's a very accurate statement since food abundance has almost a 1:1 correlation with fossil fuel use. It was ironically funny, but is still essentially correct.

Yes but in no way contradictory to my point, implying an absense of critical thinking. The fact that large mammals cannot thrive on an overly warmed planet has absolutely no relationship to fossil fuels allowing excess food production.

It's like disputing the fact that electronic components may fail due to high temperatures by pointing out that some batteries operate better when warm.

[c4757p]

Dave...you're better than to get into yet another climate change argument thread on this forum...why don't you just lock it up and be done with it?

[edavid]

At the risk of repeating myself this is new research into the suns magnetic field or rather magnetic fields as it has been found that there are two main fields both with about eleven year periods but slightly out of sync with each other. It is down to whether they are in alignment or opposing each other that regulates the solar output.

You keep saying "solar output" when you mean "solar activity".

[zapta]

Dave...you're better than to get into yet another climate change argument thread on this forum...why don't you just lock it up and be done with it?

c4757p, why do you feel threaten by an open discussion?

[M4trix]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

[LabSpokane]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers? I agree a lot of "climate change" stuff is alarmist, but I also think there is a lot of propaganda from the reactionary fossil-fuel monopolies...

There is a lot of controversy to be sure. 

I would avoid demonizing the petroleum industry in this.  Koch brothers and their antics aside, major oil companies are full of very intelligent people with open minds.  Oil companies serve customers.  That would be you and me.  They supply what we demand. We enjoy wonderful, rich lives thanks to the miracle of fossil fuels.  And petroleum, it's distillates, and subsequent products truly do fall under that "near miracle" category.  For all the billions we have spent searching, we have yet to find a substitute that is as energy dense, safe, clean and portable.  All this creates virtually addictive demand for fossil fuels - particularly of the liquid variety.

And energy companies do spend a lot of money investigating alternatives to petroleum.  If they had found a better substitute, they would sell it.  There really isn't a conspiracy.  You don't hear much about R&D other than press releases because so much of the work is protected as trade secrets.  Companies and researchers also don't trumpet their failures.  These alternative fuels projects start up to great fanfare, then usually fade away in silence.  Unfortunately, that gives some the misguided impression that somehow a miracle is being suppressed due to a conspiracy.  Mistakes have certainly been made. Wrong actions have most certainly been taken.  Greed has played a starring role in some of these failures.  But, there really is no conspiracy, nor active policy to suppress replacement fuels. 

If we want something different, it is *we* who must change.  When we do, smart oil companies will follow.

[mtdoc]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers?

Websites of NASA and the major scientific organizations: See HERE and HERE.

These are non partisan organizations (consisting of people from all political persuasions) that do not receive private funding and which form the foundation of science as we know it (which in itself is not a political process despite what those who disagree with it's conclusions may say).

For a point by point explanation of the underlying science addressing (with scienctific references) all of the points that any honest skeptic might raise, see Skeptical Science.

Avoid websites and indiviuals linked to political "think tanks" and organizations funded by the fossil fuel industry (or renewable energy industry for that matter).

For any source in question try googling them to see what ties, if any they have to political organizations or industry. Wikipedia will have entries for most of the major organizations and websites  (including skeptical science).

[LabSpokane]

Dave...you're better than to get into yet another climate change argument thread on this forum...why don't you just lock it up and be done with it?

I would like to see people discuss this issue.  What I'd hope to see is everyone leaving the hyperbole aside - from both camps.  We all largely know and agree that unrestrained fossil fuel use and dependence will have a negative outcome.  Rather than arguing about the weather models versus the Farmer's Almanac, it would be far more constructive for everyone to think about what small changes we could make that would add up to a large societal benefit.  We have all benefited from the modern age, just as much as we're all to blame.  And we all must assume a modicum of responsibility to secure the future. 

It's possible, but not via partisan / nationalistic bickering.

A lot of us here are engineers and scientists.  We can do this.