No, please. I don't think he could handle all the +1's again

The Titanic isn't sinking, my end is... oh wait nevermind.

great, now we have to throw around +1s again.

Do not +1 this post

The Titanic ISN'T sinking. It's already at the bottom, so things are only looking up.

I say we sink him

@Jamiet99uk

You are right, the BBC is biased. They only show the climate believer's side.

This isn't a matter of belief, you fool. It's a matter of scientific fact.

The BBC do tend to get a little overexcited with these things. To quote part of the article:

'And he asserted that the new figures confirm the key trend in climate change: "There is no standstill in global warming."'

Complete tosh, of course. This years temperatures haven't confirmed anything and the chap being interviewed didn't say they did. They do indeed suggest that warming is continuing, but you couldn't use them to say without doubt that the two and a half decade stabilisation in temperatures has come to an end.

@Octavious - that is symptomatic of the whole debate. There is nothing between "Human activity is driving global warming" and "It's all a lie. Everything is fine" - the media cannot say "The evidence suggests that we are going through a warming phase, to which human activity may be making a contribution, which we might be able to mitigate against, although it may or may not be too late to prevent the effects, of which we are not sure exactly how bad they are going to be"

Pete U: It is too late. There will be climate change for decades to come because of human production of greenhouse gases.

It's simple.
1. By what percent has the atmosphere changed.
2. Is this change expected to cause problems.
3. Did people cause this change, if so, can we change it back.
4. If it's a problem, how do we prevent it in the future, regardless of whose at fault.

@JECE: except for drastic geo-engineering projects...

metaturbo707: Change it back? Even if global greenhouse gas emissions were cut to zero overnight, global atmospheric average tempratures would continue rising for decades. Considering that we've raised atmospheric temperature enough with the greenhouse gases we've already pumped into the atmosphere to change the climate, the continuation of global warming over the next decades will cause more dire climate change for many more decades no matter what we do. So sure, we might be able to change it back by cutting emissions to zero and waiting a couple centuries, but even then there is no gaurantee that the climate will settle back into the order.

So this is not a matter of how we can "prevent it in the future". 'It' is happening and will continue to happen for decades to come. All we can do at this point is try to lessen the suffering by limiting global greenhouse gas emissions in the hopes that we can keep climate change from being even more severe.

into the order -->into the old order

orathaic: The BBC article you posted the other day didn't sound very enthusiastic about that possibility.

Not least because it can't work completely ("A key finding was that none of the simulations managed to keep the world's temperature at the level experienced between 1986-2005 - suggesting that any effort would have to be maintained for years.") and will cause its own climate change ("'The most striking example of a downside would be the complete drying-out of the Sahel region of Africa - that would be very difficult to adapt to for those substantial populations - and that happens across all the scenarios.'").

@ JECE: Please answer the first 3 questions, directly, and explain how you got your answers!

Oooh, can I try?

1) Percent of what? If you use percentages, you need to specify what this percentage is of. Atmospheric change can hardly be summarized with a number.

How I got the answer: thinking

2) Yes.

Source: reading, looking at satellite images

3) Yes, and no. We can't bring something back once we've changed it. Species are dying out. They are dying out as a consequence of what we've done. We won't get back to where we were, because not everything can be undone. As for us having caused it, there is no other credible proposed mechanism for the rapid rise in temperature than light being trapped by greenhouse gasses, which we are putting into the atmosphere.

How I got this answer: reading, thinking

@phil_a_s:

1. Rate of change of whatever you think is changing! d/dt, my friend! If the atmosphere has warmed, or if something in the composition of the atmosphere has changed and you claim it has something to do with "atmosphere warming or vv. define it quantitatively and explain your answer using correct logical reasoning based on accurate data.
2. Explain your answer using correct logical reasoning based on accurate data please.
3. Explain your statements using correct logical reasoning based on accurate data please.

Seriously, how much percentage change in the atmosphere composition has really occurred? How much has the mass fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere really changed? Is this historically significant? The mass of the atmosphere is 5,700,000,000,000,000 tons. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2,300,000,000,000 tons. How much CO2 could humanity possibly have produced?? Anyone have a number for that? How much have we changed it??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

A lot of good organized information here!

The wikipedia page says there's been a 40% increase in CO2 since 1750, for whatever reason. But, that large "% change" is still on a very tiny amount to start with, in parts per million! What happens if a tiny amount doubles? Its still a tiny amount! The end result they show is an increase of 1.9 W/m^2 of energy retained. Well, the earth receives about 1366 W/m^2 of solar energy on average. So you're talking about a heating change of 0.14 %. Significant? I'd say a 2 watt lightbulb (a christmas tree light) shining on a meter squared of ground isn't going to cause much trouble. What do you think?

metaturbo707: I answered 3. and 4. on purpose.

Classy, by the way: I don't think I've seen someone cite nothing but Wikipedia for the sole purpose of bashing what's in an article before. You've got some solid supporting evidence right there.

If a scientist tells us Pluto is a planet we believe them, they tell us the Earth is 4 billion years old and we also believe them, they tell us their is global warming and everyone is in denial. This year was the warmest year on record.
Whether you believe it or not when the Polar ice caps melt there will a whole load of water about. Anyway why are we worried about such trivialities when the growth in world population is such a massive threat to our planet, at some point we will actually be encouraging a human cull either through war or the spread of disease.

there not their .... my spelling is rhubarb

as for the current mass extinction event; even without climate change (which we are causing) we'd still be destroying habitats, busting up ecological chains which rely on species we've hunted to extinction, and generally mucking up the place (with invasive species) at a much higher rate than evolution has a chance to cope with.

The simple fact that there is 7 billion of us using the land means there isn't space for as many other animals. Anything which doesn't do well in urban areas or is not used in farming, has been negatively affected (in pure numbers) because we live on a planet with finite resources.

@metaturbo: and yet the best simulations we have seem to show a trend. But then we've know for decades that weather systems are chaotic (look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory ) and thus sensitive to small changes.

@JECE: yes, but with some political muscle, geoengineering projects could be of huge benefit. IF we are careful; but we'll also need to choose to protect all humans rather than just nation states - which means reacting to international crisis with a system sligthly more robust than the UN (see: http://online.wsj.com/articles/united-nations-food-program-halts-aid-to-syrian-refugees-1417444143 ) We should be encouraging the movement of people across borders where it benefits the hsot country (concentration of population in urban areas has certain synergistic effects, which can benefit everyone, and reduce land use, while causing an economic boost.)

The biggest obstacle with geoengineering is that climate and weather suddenly becomes someone's fault. Climate change is a natural process (aspects of which have been heavily impacted by human activity), and has always contained positive and negative factors. Sea levels, for example, have been rising for thousands of years. Would geo engineers feel obliged to stop this natural process for the benefit of humans who live in low lying areas? Once we start doing this stopping will be considerably more difficult. The natural state of the earth will move ever further from where we artificially fix it, which has at least the potential to cause quite intense issues.

"They only show the climate believer's side."

Are you suggesting there are people that don't believe there is a climate?

''Whether you believe it or not when the Polar ice caps melt there will a whole load of water about.''

The Computaional modellers prediction:

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. -BBC Dec. 12, 2007

And the data:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif