What are your thoughts of the 2012 scenario.

Blaming climate change on natural causes is rather like saying that forest fires happen in nature anyway, so no need to worry about any human-caused fires...

The consensus among the great majority of climate scientists currently active in climate research is that human activities are overwhelmingly to blame for the current warming trend. And yes, they have looked carefully at all of the possible natural causes for warming, and they don't add up. See: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
 
by Michael Le Page
Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.
Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.
With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the most common climate myths and misconceptions.
There is also a guide to assessing the evidence, as well as a blog looking at the history of climate science. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.

Where are the sources? Why no names? Publications - not a very good reference. I can write something like that.

Look here:
Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present


  1. James Zachos1,*,
  2. Mark Pagani1,
  3. Lisa Sloan1,
  4. Ellen Thomas2,3 and
  5. Katharina Billups4
+ Author Affiliations

  1. 1 Earth Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
  2. 2 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459, USA.
  3. 3 Center for the Study of Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520–8105, USA.
  4. 4 College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Lewes, DE 19958, USA.

Abstract

Since 65 million years ago (Ma), Earth's climate has undergone a significant and complex evolution, the finer details of which are now coming to light through investigations of deep-sea sediment cores. This evolution includes gradual trends of warming and cooling driven by tectonic processes on time scales of 105to 107 years, rhythmic or periodic cycles driven by orbital processes with 104- to 106-year cyclicity, and rare rapid aberrant shifts and extreme climate transients with durations of 103 to 105 years. Here, recent progress in defining the evolution of global climate over the Cenozoic Era is reviewed. We focus primarily on the periodic and anomalous components of variability over the early portion of this era, as constrained by the latest generation of deep-sea isotope records. We also consider how this improved perspective has led to the recognition of previously unforeseen mechanisms for altering climate.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/686.short

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10.html

Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections

Executive Summary

Mean Temperature

Temperature Extremes

Mean Precipitation

Precipitation Extremes and Droughts

Snow and Ice

Carbon Cycle

Ocean Acidification

Sea Level

Mean Tropical Pacific Climate Change

El Niño

Monsoons

Sea Level Pressure

Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons)

Mid-latitude Storms

Atlantic Ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation

Radiative Forcing

Climate Change Commitment (Temperature and Sea Level)

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Projected Changes in Emissions, Concentrations and Radiative Forcing

10.2.1 Emissions Scenarios and Radiative Forcing in the Multi-Model Climate Projections

10.2.2 Recent Developments in Projections of Radiative Species and Forcing for the 21st Century

10.3 Projected Changes in the Physical Climate System

10.3.1 Time-Evolving Global Change

10.3.2 Patterns of Change in the 21st Century

10.3.3 Changes in Ocean/Ice and High-Latitude Climate

10.3.4 Changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

10.3.5 Changes in Properties of Modes of Variability

FAQ 10.1 Are Extreme Events, Like Heat Waves, Droughts or Floods, Expected to Change as the Earth’s Climate Changes? 

10.3.6 Future Changes in Weather and Climate Extremes

10.4 Changes Associated with Biogeochemical Feedbacks and Ocean Acidification

10.4.1 Carbon Cycle/Vegetation Feedbacks

10.4.2 Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

10.4.3 Simulations of Future Evolution of Methane, Ozone and Oxidants

10.4.4 Simulations of Future Evolution of Major Aerosol Species

10.5 Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections

10.5.1 Sources of Uncertainty and Hierarchy of Models

10.5.2 Range of Responses from Different Models

10.5.3 Global Mean Responses from Different Scenarios

10.5.4 Sampling Uncertainty and Estimating Probabilities

10.6 Sea Level Change in the 21st Century

10.6.1 Global Average Sea Level Rise Due to Thermal Expansion

10.6.2 Local Sea Level Change Due to Change in Ocean Density and Dynamics

10.6.3 Glaciers and Ice Caps

10.6.4 Ice Sheets

FAQ 10.2 How Likely are Major or Abrupt Climate Changes, such as Loss of Ice Sheets or Changes in Global Ocean Circulation? 

10.6.5 Projections of Global Average Sea Level Change for the 21st Century

10.7 Long Term Climate Change and Commitment

10.7.1 Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300 Based on AOGCMs

FAQ 10.3 If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease? 

10.7.2 Climate Change Commitment to Year 3000 and Beyond to Equilibrium

10.7.3 Long-Term Integrations: Idealised Overshoot Experiments

10.7.4 Commitment to Sea Level Rise

References

Appendix 10.A: Methods for Sea Level Projections for the 21st Century

10.A.1 Scaling MAGICC Results

10.A.2 Mass Balance Sensitivity of Glaciers and Ice Caps

10.A.3 Area Scaling of Glaciers and Ice Caps

10.A.4 Changes in Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance

10.A.5 Changes in Ice Sheet Dynamics

10.A.6 Combination of Uncertainties

10.A.7 Change in Surface Air Temperature Over the Major West Antarctic Ice Shelves



Coordinating Lead Authors:

Gerald A. Meehl (USA), Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland)

Lead Authors:

William D. Collins (USA), Pierre Friedlingstein (France, Belgium), Amadou T. Gaye (Senegal), Jonathan M. Gregory (UK),
Akio Kitoh (Japan), Reto Knutti (Switzerland), James M. Murphy (UK), Akira Noda (Japan), Sarah C.B. Raper (UK),
Ian G. Watterson (Australia), Andrew J. Weaver (Canada), Zong-Ci Zhao (China)

Contributing Authors:

R.B. Alley (USA), J. Annan (Japan, UK), J. Arblaster (USA, Australia), C. Bitz (USA), P. Brockmann (France), V. Brovkin (Germany, Russian Federation), L. Buja (USA), P. Cadule (France), G. Clarke (Canada), M. Collier (Australia), M. Collins (UK), E. Driesschaert (Belgium), N.A. Diansky (Russian Federation), M. Dix (Australia), K. Dixon (USA), J.-L. Dufresne (France),
M. Dyurgerov (Sweden, USA), M. Eby (Canada), N.R. Edwards (UK), S. Emori (Japan), P. Forster (UK), R. Furrer (USA, Switzerland),
P. Gleckler (USA), J. Hansen (USA), G. Harris (UK, New Zealand), G.C. Hegerl (USA, Germany), M. Holland (USA), A. Hu (USA, China),
P. Huybrechts (Belgium), C. Jones (UK), F. Joos (Switzerland), J.H. Jungclaus (Germany), J. Kettleborough (UK), M. Kimoto (Japan),
T. Knutson (USA), M. Krynytzky (USA), D. Lawrence (USA), A. Le Brocq (UK), M.-F. Loutre (Belgium), J. Lowe (UK),
H.D. Matthews (Canada), M. Meinshausen (Germany), S.A. Müller (Switzerland), S. Nawrath (Germany), J. Oerlemans (Netherlands), M. Oppenheimer (USA), J. Orr (Monaco, USA), J. Overpeck (USA), T. Palmer (ECMWF, UK), A. Payne (UK), G.-K. Plattner (Switzerland),
J. Räisänen (Finland), A. Rinke (Germany), E. Roeckner (Germany), G.L. Russell (USA), D. Salas y Melia (France), B. Santer (USA),
G. Schmidt (USA, UK), A. Schmittner (USA, Germany), B. Schneider (Germany), A. Shepherd (UK), A. Sokolov (USA, Russian Federation), D. Stainforth (UK), P.A. Stott (UK), R.J. Stouffer (USA), K.E. Taylor (USA), C. Tebaldi (USA), H. Teng (USA, China), L. Terray (France),
R. van de Wal (Netherlands), D. Vaughan (UK), E. M. Volodin (Russian Federation), B. Wang (China), T. M. L. Wigley (USA),
M. Wild (Switzerland), J. Yoshimura (Japan), R. Yu (China), S. Yukimoto (Japan)

Review Editors:

Myles Allen (UK), Govind Ballabh Pant (India)

This chapter should be cited as:

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao, 2007: Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Don't get me wrong. I am aware that people are affecting the climate. And we need to curtail our emissions just as we need to curtail our pollution. But, The planet is getting warmer right now no matter what we do. Its a cycle. When the planet warms enough to thaw the arctic tundra warming will double its rate due to the release of huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. A thousand times what we put there. In half the time. Polar ice will melt and the ocean density will decrease releasing even more carbon to the atmosphere. The ocean conveyor shuts down and then we will enter a period of cooling signifying the beginning of the next ice age. Its going to happen no matter what we do. It might happen a few tens of years faster but that is insignificant related to the normal span of these climate ages.

Perhaps it is some peoples luxury to worry about such trivial matters. Trivial because its all inescapable. It is insignificant because the changes will not be witnessed by any living generations of us. It likely will still be warming for another thousand years or so. By that time we should have used up the majority of our fossil fuels and already be powering our planet on solar or fission. Much ado over nothing.
 
I am not a climate scientist so, like everyone else who isn't, I am restricted to studying what they publish about their research findings. As the New Scientist website points out in its general introduction to this subject, climate science is extremely complex subject and there is much that is not well understood, particularly concerning the implications of global warming for climate change in specific regions of the planet (although a lot of effort is being put into that now). Despite that, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of currently active climate scientists (in other words, the ones who are doing all the research and studying the data) believe that human activities are making a significant contribution to the current warming trend.

You are right that the warming climate - whatever the cause - is likely to have consequences which will accelerate the rate of warming as more greenhouse gases are released from formerly frozen tundra and the ocean floor. Current estimates of the average global temperature increase by 2100 range between 2 degrees and 5 degrees Celsius, depending on many things (most significantly, what humanity does about curbing the production of greenhouse gases). 2 degrees is manageable, 5 degrees would be catastrophic in its consequences.

I don't equate "inescapable" with "trivial". Yes, we have already pumped so much extra CO2 into the atmosphere that we cannot escape some of the consequences in terms of an increase in general temperatures, more erratic and violent weather patterns, and some increase in the average sea level. These consequences even by themselves are not trivial. If the rate of temperature increase continues to rise (as it surely will if we do nothing to curb our output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases) then we will be facing accordingly more severe consequences, occurring more quickly and giving us less time to adapt.

The difficulties in getting the squabbling herd of cats known as the UN to agree on anything are such that I don't expect international agreement to achieve anything worthwhile before the consequences become blatantly obvious, by which time it really will be too late to do much about it except batten down the hatches and try to cope with what are likely to be massive problems.

On a personal note, I share your lack of concern about the consequences for myself; being retired, I don't expect to be around when the problems really start to hit. I feel sorry for kids being born today, though - they face some tough times.
 
As I've mentioned before in other posts I'm an Environmental Technician and I've been working in this profession for the last 13 years.

Global warming is a natural occurrence that has been aggravated by the CO2 that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere. Saying that humanity is solely to blame for this situation is an environmentalist point of view the same goes for people that say it is a natural occurrence and that humanity isn't contributing to the global warming, which is a capitalistic point of view. They are the two sides of the same coin.

Due to the participating of humanity the situation is highly unpredictable, it may happen sooner than expected, it may be more extreme than expected or it may last longer. In truth no one knows, the scientists can only guess because they really don't have any concrete foundation to base their decisions.
 
I don't disagree with that - I've never said that humanity is solely to blame, merely that natural causes cannot explain the current rate of increase. The issue is to what extent the current warming trend is being fuelled by human CO2 production - and, more importantly, what we can or should do about that.
 
I apologize if I gave the impression that I was referring to your previous posts on the subject. I was trying to generalized based on what I've heard over the years from environmentalists, scientists and teachers.

As to what we can do, I don't think we can do that much except try and reduce the CO2 levels but even that may not be enough to produce results that are desired. The best thing is to ride out what is to come and do what humanity has done since the beginning of our existence and that is to survive.

I normally mention to my friends in a joking way that in the situation of a global catastrophe only two species will survive, the cockroaches and humans. Now on a more serious level we have a capacity to survive most catastrophes not by evolution but by the capacity to adapt our surroundings to our needs.
 
What are your thoughts of the 2012 scenario.


I don't think global warming or cooling was the intent of this discussion. At threat of this becoming just another dull climate debate I need to bow out.
 
Maybe the 50 million Climate refugees the UN promised by 2010 that nobody can find will turn up.Alternatively Usama Bin Laden will die for the tenth time.I promised myself I WILL NOT RANT so I will just shut up, oh! by the way didn't some clown promise 4.5 billion dead by 2012 ,and meanwhile Big Al Gore buys a waterfront mansion so he can watch the 20 meter rise in sea level
 
The number '2012' in itself is arbitrary. It is supposed to measure from the time of Christ's birth (The Mayans knew nothing of this and people have since tried to add their calender to ours - is this in anyway accurate? We have no real idea what the Mayans thought) and we have no real idea when Jesus was born (or if he really existed - No offence Christians out there).
Other cultures use different calenders entirely - does this mean they won't be wiped out??

Anyway we can only know the future when we invent time travel! Or have we already??

Simon Tall

(Try my free ebook -
Simon Poore
- and let me know what you think?)
 
Top UK astrologer Jonathan Cainer recently said at a talk at the Sunrise Celebration festival that there have been end of the world predictions, there are currently others and there will be more in the future. The end of the world isn't on his radar for now. He's certainly planning ahead for events after the calendar runs out.

Direct quote from his talk I just found where I'd upped it live: "They're like buses, these end of the world things."
 
Top UK astrologer Jonathan Cainer recently said at a talk at the Sunrise Celebration festival that there have been end of the world predictions, there are currently others and there will be more in the future.

I think that is unique - the first time I've ever agreed with an astrologer!
 
:rolleyes: there's a vast quantity of scientific evidence in support of the theory that the Earth is warming up, and that human activities have contributed (and continue to contribute) in a big way to that. There's no evidence at all for the 2012 silliness.

There is no evidence for global warming however there is plenty of evidence for NATURAL climate change.Lets look at Co2 which at 0.0390 parts/million of the atmosphere,Nature produces 97% of all Co2 emissions AND we (shock horror) produce 3% of next to nothing.When a computer model is used as evidence one has to consider the G.I.G.O. factor garbage in =garbage out ,it may produce Methane but no scientific evidence only guesswork.Co2 is life
 
Agreed! The idea that the world will end with its collision into a planet niribu (which overlaps with the end of the mayan calendar) is hogwash. We would have spotted something that big long ago.

I have long been of the opinion that a convergence of crisis', things like global warming, ozone pollution, ocean acidification, depletion of arable land, peak water, and the energy crisis (all of which, coincidently, are projected to peak in intensity sometime in the 2030s) will do humanity in. The only way we could survive a barrage of such threats is (if not by mitigating the disasters directly, through arcane geoengineering) by building durabilty into our society: Extreme storm resistant homes, self sufficent infrastructures (local agriculture and farming), multiply redundant power grid, etc. I'm actually planning on doing an expose of this anomaly on my youtube channel.
 
It might also be sensible to begin reducing the population. 7 billion and counting is unsustainable. We're obviously planning to f*** ourselves to death.
 
Back
Top