I'm there with you partially, but if we must wait 50-100 years for the tech to START solving this problem, humanity as we know it has no chance.
I say that because 1. We're still rising the rate at which we add CO2, not lowering it 2. Even if it dropped to 0 tomorrow, we still see 3-5 degree temperature rise in the 100 years before even the extra CO2 already in the atmosphere is absorbed (and that's if the natural processes that absorb CO2 don't completely fail before then, the ocean system is, forests are disappearing, I'm not sure what's left to do the job nature has done for all history) 3. Assuming we do see even just that minimal rise, and not a catastrophic cycle that releases methane causing it to be more like 10 degrees minimum, the disruption of commerce, production (food and other), the loss of natural food sources, useable water, etc. could easily make solving the problem exponentially more difficult to solve in the even near future, and impossible 50 years farther down this road, and 4.Unexpected side effects of solving this problem could easily make things worse...for instance, if we just shut down all coal plants and combustion engines tomorrow, we could easily see a rapid 3+ degree C rise in temperature globally because we would stop adding the particulates that cause 'global dimming' (which is assumed to be causing approximately 3 degrees of cooling today).

(wow, that might be the longest run on sentence I've ever written!)

My hope is that this will take the form of progressive revolutions. When the food and energy start to become scarce people might start to recognise that the ONLY people who can get us out of this mess are engineers, inventors and scientists.

Maybe we will even be smart enough to put them in charge and ditch the whole idea of politics for the sake of politics all together.

A man can hope anyway. The alternative seems to be extreme left and right wing movements fighting over metaphorical ash and bones.

Co2, methane and other undesirables in the atmosphere could probably be shifted if there was a concerted global effort, doubly so if we factor in 50-100 years of technological advancement. I'm sure the task would be herculean but it would probably also be the greatest thing we ever achieved as a species! ("screw your ancient wonders, we built an air scrubber the size of Missouri!")

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

Do the models that you reference (that say it won't be disastrous by 2100) include methane? From everything I've read and seen reported, the methyl hydrates are already melting in the oceans, causing large releases of methane throughout the globe. Methane is a FAR worse greenhouse gas than CO2. What I've read is that, once that cycle gets going, it's self re-enforcing because the methane traps heat, heating the ocean, releasing more methane, trapping more heat, etc. It's hard for me to believe they are now predicting LESS warming by 2100 when the hydrates are already melting ahead of predictions....perhaps there's a part of the cycle I don't understand?

Absolute BS.
Bad math, no science. He's cherry picking data and extrapolating using partial worst case scenarios rather than actual measurements...that is not science, it's misleading propaganda.
The cost of moving away from fossil fuels is easily offset completely by the savings of the new technologies used, and likely the switch would be a gain to GDP, as it makes tens of thousands of new technology jobs and billions-trillions in additional GDP selling the tech, and once built many new techs have far lower operation costs, saving money. (That's how economies work, you sell stuff and make money...right?) It sure worked for my solar system, which you, Trance, would likely still try to talk people out of, claiming it's more expensive than it's worth, while reality is it paid for itself in less than 1/3 of it's expected lifespan AND has other benefits.
The cost of 'adapting to climate change' is infinite, as it's impossible. Plants, animals, and biota can't survive it...and people like to eat. Kind of hard to adapt if there's no food, far LESS farmable land, less or no natural food sources, etc.
Also, he ignores the facts that 1) it's almost certainly going to be MORE than 3 deg. by 2100 and 2)methane hydrates are already melting, and methane is (I think) something like 100 times more damaging to the atmosphere (as far as greenhouse effects), so even "just" 3 deg. suddenly becomes 8 deg...that's often ignored.
3 deg. means on average, but also means the spread gets larger. Winters are colder, summers are even hotter. 3 deg. doesn't sound like much by itself, but it really means 15-20 deg. hotter when it's hot, and 12-17deg. colder when it's cold.

Here is the full version http://youtu.be/-zvo7xXs-T0

From what i can gather, seems like it may have been a methane gas spill from a truck. I assume from behind the building where the gas appears to be venting from. As you can see in the full version a person in a red shirt runs down the street to stop traffic. Four people were injured (one by shrapnel and three with burns).

Newtboy said it well; ice ages come and go due to numerous factors, but one of the most important factors is how much of the atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide and methane.

Indeed, there have been interglacial periods where the earth was largely void of ice and had the much higher sea levels to match. At one point global temperatures were about as high as is expected to occur in the next century or two.

The difference between then and now is that life and the ecological chemistry of earth had millions of years to adapt before those periods reached their height in most cases. I say in most cases because there have been periods where climate change occurred faster than before and severely disrupted ecological stability or simply caused mass extinctions. Climate change has always happened, but the reason why current climate change is so worrying is because it is happening faster than ever before and because there is a massive amount of data to back it up.

The scientific community *knows* that climate change is real. The scientific community is made up of individual researchers at universities all over the world, anyone who practices good science and adheres to the scientific method is in no doubt about what the research points to. You can't buy the global scientific community, there are too many of "us" (i guess) that are all absolutely anal about good scientific practice. You could buy one or two, you could buy a small group, but the only thing that changes the opinion of the global scientific community is hard scientific reasoning.

I can't speak for where you live, but if you were to walk into my university's physics department tomorrow and ask any lecturer or professor about climate change, they'd tell you that, and the same goes for just about any university in the UK, holland and france i imagine, if not more like germany and so on. Anyone who has spent any amount of time comparing graphs and looking for statistical anomalies will tell you that there is a god damn big and unwieldy peak sticking up on the temperature/time graph right about where we started mass producing greenhouse gases, and the only new influence into the equation was us, because the old peaks are flat compared to this one. This is happening on a HUMAN timescale, not on a geological one.

We're seeing ocean floor methane bubbling up to the surface that we haven't seen before due to the heating of the ocean, and only this week the scientist who studied it tweeted flat out that if even a fraction of that methane is released into the atmosphere... "we're fucked."

It's pretty damn serious, but i'm not telling you that you need to pay huge taxes or fees to green companies or anything, and no scientist ever will. The agendas that politicians take up in the name of science should not stop you from accepting the science, and there are simple, good common sense things you can do to make a small difference that would cumulate to something big if we all did them. The only reason governments haven't been investing more into green energy is because they are relentlessly lobbied by the hugely wealthy and powerful and corrupt energy firms.

What is more likely?

I was with him until the end where he said "time is on our side"....sorry, but time actually ran out to 'fix' this issue decades ago. Now the best we could hope for is to mitigate the damage and not continue to exacerbate the effects by adding more CO2 and other green house gasses. Once the ocean warms enough to melt the methyl hydrates, the oceans catch fire (warming them even more) and the methane both destroys the air and starts the super green house effect, sending us on the death spiral towards a Venus like atmosphere. It's getting really close, people. In some places it's already happening. Put your fire suits and gas masks on.

Nah, you can fart all you want... into a gas bag which will capture the methane and use it to power your home

But yeah, we are coming to the end of the cheap energy age.

Fusion or bust!

You also assume this is our moon, and not just an extremely dry planet with a methane atmosphere.

I don't think you're grumpy, radx. Granted, my posts tend to have that same ominous tone, in general so I guess I'm a grump too. If you really think about the scale of inequality today, the absolute plundering the ultra-rich enjoyed during the recent recession and the efforts to keep money in politics to perpetuate this cycle with brilliant tools like Citizens United, it's hard not to be bleak.

Unfortunately, what we like to call democracy simply does not have the teeth to affect meaningful change. I am encouraged by the relative economic performance from the list of countries that have scrapped first past the post (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ) except for maybe Portugal, but even with more effective elections there is still an extra seat for the rich in every government.

Even more unfortunate will be the painful revolution the world will endure to either change from capitalism to some other form of economics (maybe resourced-based, a-la Peter Joseph.) If we don't simply slide obediently into greater and greater concentrations of wealth for the ultra-rich, we get closer and closer to revolution. But all it will take will be one upheaval to spur the revolution into action, be it:
- another, even more severe recession (maybe the EU will implode, taking the world economy down with it)
- severe global warming positive feedback loop from the arctic methane stores
- nuclear war

And who the hell knows what else might set people off. Maybe a solar flare will fry all the satellites in orbit and the lack of new tweets will create a world-wide frenzy of irate twats. And who knows when it will happen. Maybe 5 years, maybe 50 years. Since money pulls the strings, I think we're doomed to guess as to the source of VoodooV's "tipping point."

Wait. I'm confused. I've heard for a long time now that cattle and their methane farts are big contributors to climate change. I've heard that it's the burgers to blame. Is that not true anymore or does that only go for factory farms? Honestly, it's harder to keep up with the causes of climate change than it is the solutions.

Oh yea hey man.. we already covered this.

Albrite30 is "having fun"

it doesn't matter anything else other than that.

This waste of space retarded regurgitated bullshit since his last poll is just for him. So we have to bare with it.. you know, because he "has the power " although clearly shitting on the protocol, and lighting his methane infused shit on fire with his idiotic banter, Burning the protocol mandated in the FAQ.

At least one person got a laugh out of the idiocy.