When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The inconvenient truth of climate change is that there is no one on this planet who fully understands what is going on with it. It is something based upon millions of factors and their complex interactions with each other.
The problem Joe public has is that their source of climate change information is basically the media - TV news, newspapers and magazines etc and these are produced by people who have little to no understanding of climate change facts and often have their own agenda. They invariably twist the science, intentionally or otherwise, to tell a good story leaving the end consumer reading someone who doesn't understand the science's probably biased interpretation of some facts that in isolation may completely miss a bigger picture. I.e. Joe public gets fed a lot of b*llocks.
I had to study some 'climate change' data at university and it was quite eye opening how easy it is to spin data. I'm sure some will have seen the 'hockey stick' global temperature graph - looks compelling in isolation, much less so when you study temperature patters over a much longer period.
Have no doubt, mankind is having an effect on the global climate. The question is what is the effect they are having. And the answer is that it is virtually impossible to say as a change somewhere will have thousands of interactions that make the outcome virtually impossible to predict. And ultimately there is no point getting excited about it cause if humans are having a devastating effect on the climate then chances are it's too late to fix - then again this planet is very good at 'healing' itself and has done in the past - did you know that it's now quite well accepted that the whole planet was frozen at one point? Or that the Gulf stream has previously stopped and restarted?
What level of certainty would make it non-'thetf'?
That's a very good question, and not one which is easily answered.
However, we are pumping record levels of CO2 out, and the temperature has not risen (fallen by some measurements), so that shows, if nothing else, that they didn't really understand the mechanisms in place.
Once you have proved their initial models are incorrect, you really should go back to the beginning, which patently they will not do.
COP21 conference is over that and agreement has been reached by all those countries taking part have set limit on global warming of 2 degrees C. Hooray you cry, we're saved. Question is how did they arrive at this arbitrary 2 degrees C and how do they know we will even be able stop a rise when scientists can't prove warming is man made? All their peer reviewed papers contains nothing concrete, just a lot of "coulds", "mays", "suggests" and figures presented in a way to support their point of view. They say the science is "settled" and anyone who questions or otherwise even wishes to present another view point are ladled, ironically, as "deniers". You couldn't convict someone of a crime based on circumstantial evidence, but this kind of evidence it seems is okay when it comes to global warming. When see a single event like the flooding in Cumbria, this is evidence of global warming, however, it is just "weather" when don't see their "predicted" summers or winters. But that's great for them, if what they predict was accurate and they find incontrovertible proof of man made global warming, that'll be the end of their funding for further "research" as then the science would then be settled.
So what do we have now? We have the richest nations doing what they always done and that is very little, whilst penalising the poorest countries and not addressing the real issue, the growing human population.
The basic science around AGW is settled, in the same way the science is settled around evolution and heliocentricity
That does not mean there is no point in doing research into AGW just as we still have reproductive biologist doing research and research in the orbits of the planets
An astrophysicist does not have to check whether the earth still goes around the sun before he sets of for work
This “settled science” rubbish is simply a strawman like most denier arguments
The physics around CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been known and understood for nearly a century – and is testable in a laboratory
We know the earth has been warming (beyond natural variations), and we know there has been as increase in CO2
And the crap about not being able to tell what the weather is like next month, so how can they know
Well the climate is not the weather – no Climate scientist EVER said it was, - climate deals with trends over a period of 30 years and is actually “easier” to predict than next month’s weather
In the same way I can’t tell you what the weather will be in mid Jan, but I can say that the average daytime temperate in July will be above that of January
The basic science around AGW is settled, in the same way the science is settled around evolution and heliocentricity
That does not mean there is no point in doing research into AGW just as we still have reproductive biologist doing research and research in the orbits of the planets
An astrophysicist does not have to check whether the earth still goes around the sun before he sets of for work
This “settled science” rubbish is simply a strawman like most denier arguments
The physics around CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been known and understood for nearly a century – and is testable in a laboratory
We know the earth has been warming (beyond natural variations), and we know there has been as increase in CO2
And the crap about not being able to tell what the weather is like next month, so how can they know
Well the climate is not the weather – no Climate scientist EVER said it was, - climate deals with trends over a period of 30 years and is actually “easier” to predict than next month’s weather
In the same way I can’t tell you what the weather will be in mid Jan, but I can say that the average daytime temperate in July will be above that of January
Climate scientists claim it's "settled" and yet continue to have trouble predicting the climate. Their past predictions have been inaccurate and constantly change as they "correct" their models which goes no further that to predict the present. There is no irrefutable evidence to say AGW exists; sure there are variations in global temperature but no proof that this is "man-made" and climatologists are no different to the deniers is using straw man arguments. The Met Office say the floods in Cumbria is caused by AGW but present no evidence that this is the case. You compare AGW to evolution and heliocentricity; no one in these fields of study claim that the science is settled. But what we do have is irrefutable observable evidence; there is a direct and observable correlation that the planets orbit the sun likewise there is observable correlation in evolution with DNA evidence. Sure the properties of CO2 have been observed in a laboratory, but that is in a controlled and closed environment and in concentrations that far exceed the quantity that is in our atmosphere and is out of context, for example, we also observed pure oxygen can kill you.
There may be an increase in atmospheric CO2 but how much is that is due to human compared to naturally occurring CO2? It's estimated by the IPCC that humans contribute 29 gigatons of CO2. Whilst that amount sounds huge, it is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons that is naturally produced per year, that is 0.04% of total CO2 is man made, a figure that can be cancelled out by natural variation or by errors in calculations. Also bare in mind that life on this planet flourished with higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I remain sceptical that 0.04% CO2 produced by man, but as yet to prove, can affect the climate as much as the climate scientists claim and then go to say a reduction of 40% or 0.01% of combined total CO2 produced will limit a temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.
You can tell what the average daytime temperate will be in July because you have observed it with direct correlation with the Earth's orbit and tilt this behaviour is consistent and proven. You cannot say the same for AGW.
So what do we have now? We have the richest nations doing what they always done and that is very little, whilst penalising the poorest countries and not addressing the real issue, the growing human population.
Climate scientists claim it's "settled" and yet continue to have trouble predicting the climate. Their past predictions have been inaccurate and constantly change as they "correct" their models which goes no further that to predict the present. There is no irrefutable evidence to say AGW exists; sure there are variations in global temperature but no proof that this is "man-made" and climatologists are no different to the deniers is using straw man arguments. The Met Office say the floods in Cumbria is caused by AGW but present no evidence that this is the case. You compare AGW to evolution and heliocentricity; no one in these fields of study claim that the science is settled. But what we do have is irrefutable observable evidence; there is a direct and observable correlation that the planets orbit the sun likewise there is observable correlation in evolution with DNA evidence. Sure the properties of CO2 have been observed in a laboratory, but that is in a controlled and closed environment and in concentrations that far exceed the quantity that is in our atmosphere and is out of context, for example, we also observed pure oxygen can kill you.
There may be an increase in atmospheric CO2 but how much is that is due to human compared to naturally occurring CO2? It's estimated by the IPCC that humans contribute 29 gigatons of CO2. Whilst that amount sounds huge, it is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons that is naturally produced per year, that is 0.04% of total CO2 is man made, a figure that can be cancelled out by natural variation or by errors in calculations. Also bare in mind that life on this planet flourished with higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I remain sceptical that 0.04% CO2 produced by man, but as yet to prove, can affect the climate as much as the climate scientists claim and then go to say a reduction of 40% or 0.01% of combined total CO2 produced will limit a temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.
You can tell what the average daytime temperate will be in July because you have observed it with direct correlation with the Earth's orbit and tilt this behaviour is consistent and proven. You cannot say the same for AGW.
There is no irrefutable evidence to say AGW exists; sure there are variations in global temperature but no proof that this is "man-made" and climatologists are no different to the deniers is using straw man arguments.
Again a straw man – you use “proof”, Scientist rarely use the word
Climate models have always predicted increased rainfall in the northern latitudes
[quote=jonc;11771311] You compare AGW to evolution and heliocentricity; no one in these fields of study claim that the science is settled. But what we do have is irrefutable observable evidence; there is a direct and observable correlation that the planets orbit the sun likewise there is observable correlation in evolution with DNA evidence. Sure the properties of CO2 have been observed in a laboratory, but that is in a controlled and closed environment and in concentrations that far exceed the quantity that is in our atmosphere and is out of context, for example, we also observed pure oxygen can kill you. [QUOTE=jonc]
Explain how the properties of CO2 would differ in our atmosphere – we can and do measure the amount of energy entering and leaving our atmosphere, climate scientist observe and measure this
Originally Posted by jonc
There may be an increase in atmospheric CO2 but how much is that is due to human compared to naturally occurring CO2? It's estimated by the IPCC that humans contribute 29 gigatons of CO2. Whilst that amount sounds huge, it is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons that is naturally produced per year, that is 0.04% of total CO2 is man made, a figure that can be cancelled out by natural variation or by errors in calculations. Also bare in mind that life on this planet flourished with higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I remain sceptical that 0.04% CO2 produced by man, but as yet to prove, can affect the climate as much as the climate scientists claim and then go to say a reduction of 40% or 0.01% of combined total CO2 produced will limit a temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.
Explain what natural variations override the effects of C02 (which in the preceding paragraph you seem to deny exist outside of the lab)
You remain sceptical – but virtually every climate scientist and every major scientific body in the world does not
Just because you can’t imagine that 0.04% does not have an effect on the climate says nothing really – except you can’t imagine
Ozone forms just 0.000004% (far far less than C02) of our atmosphere yet blocks out rays that would kill most living things – I know you can’t imagine that small things can exert big effects, but luckily this view is not held by scientists
Originally Posted by jonc
You can tell what the average daytime temperate will be in July because you have observed it with direct correlation with the Earth's orbit and tilt this behaviour is consistent and proven. You cannot say the same for AGW.
2015 was the hottest year on record, 2016 will likely be in the top 3 if not the hottest. The hottest 10 years in recorded history have all occurred this century – this has matched the rise in manmade C02 – look at the Bloomberg graph
But it is not simply temperature – there are thousands of other lines of evidence, from disappearing arctic sea ice, sea level rises and increasing acidity of the oceans – the changing migratory habits of birds etc etc
Why don’t the deniers put forward an alternate theory that attempts to explains the observations
How can 100 years of records be compared to a billions years of planetary history we can only look at 1000 to 10,000 year averages?
Given all scientists agree there have been cycles of hot and cold, high and low co2 through out the earth's history then just saying 'it's humans fault it's going quicker' based on?
Simply put were comparing extact scientific measurements with averages that are 'best guess'.
While i agree we need to try to preserve the resources of the planet, all this global warming clap trap does is scaremonger for something we don't understand, is this like the ozone layer that's repairing itself now?
Given all scientists agree there have been cycles of hot and cold, high and low co2 through out the earth's history then just saying 'it's humans fault it's going quicker' based on?
.
again no climate scientist claims the climate has not changed in the past - but the temperature has stayed pretty constant for the last 10,000 years
what they want to understand why the rapid rise in the last 100 odd years
based on? - well based on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
The fact is, there was no rise in global temperature in past decade and the IPCC acknowledges this, their report states "there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012" despite the increases in CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere. This, to me, doesn't mean to say the temperature is or is not rising, but the that there are other factors that we yet to understand that greatly contribute the global temperatures than the minuscule man made CO2. It is arrogant to suggest we can control Earth's temperature simply by reducing CO2 output by and arbitrary percentage and temperature range.
Last edited by jonc; 14 December 2015 at 07:22 PM.
Plants trees etc. rely on CO2, so why is it considered so bad?
The process of photosynthesis absorbs CO2 light and water, and give out O2 as a by product. So if there were less trees being cut down worldwide, and more being planted, would that not solve the problem?
Anyway, the only way to prevent climate change is to stabilize the earth's orbit.
The fact is, there was rise in global temperature in past decade and the IPCC acknowledges this, their report states "there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012" despite the increases in CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere. This, to me, doesn't mean to say the temperature is or is not rising, but the that there are other factors that we yet to understand that greatly contribute the global temperatures than the minuscule man made CO2. It is arrogant to suggest we can control Earth's temperature simply by reducing CO2 output by and arbitrary percentage and temperature range.
lol, another strawman
deniers always start with 1998 (for good reason)
climate is defined as trends over a 30 odd year period
100 second video on trends versus short term variations
Not a straw man argument at all. I'm saying that despite the continued increase of man made CO2 over that decade, there has been no rise in temperature. If man made CO2 causes AGW then should it not follow a corollating increase in temperature in line with the increases in man made CO2? You say man made CO2 is causing the warming but the IPCC says there's been no increase. Just as you say the last ten years have been the hottest. So who is right?
Last edited by jonc; 14 December 2015 at 05:34 PM.
Not a straw man argument at all. I'm saying that despite the continued increase of man made CO2 over that decade, there has been no rise in temperature. If man made CO2 causes AGW then should it not follow a corollating increase in temperature in line with the increases in man made CO2? You say man made CO2 is causing the warming but the IPCC says there's been no increase. Just as you say the last ten years have been the hottest. So who is right?
can you explain what the exact meaning is of "statistically significant"
what amusing is that this video has pretty much all your "zombie" arguments
the deniers obviously point to a global conspiracy of NOAA / NASA / The Met office / Japan Meteorological Agency are faking data etc etc - and cherry pick quotes and data for themselves
all deniers chose the year 1998, and the RSS data set - because the can manufacture a "cooling" meme
scientists look at the 30 year trend - not short term variations
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 14 December 2015 at 08:24 PM.
the deniers obviously point to a global conspiracy of NOAA / NASA / The Met office / Japan Meteorological Agency are faking data etc etc - and cherry pick quotes and data for themselves
all deniers chose the year 1998, and the RSS data set - because the can manufacture a "cooling" meme
scientists look at the 30 year trend - not short term variations
You can put up funny videos and links to support your point of view, that's fine. I can to the same and put up equally convincing stats and graphs ( here's one that is equally compelling http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the...rature-swings/)
But my main argument isn't whether the temperatures are rising or whether CO2 is a green house gas. My argument is AGW and question the science behind it. There are still a lot of unanswered questions and despite what the pro AGW think, the science is far from settled. It's blind arrogance to suggest that humans can save the world from "catastrophic" climate change with an arbitrary percentage reduction in CO2 to prevent an equally arbitrary rise in global temperature. 10% of the richest nations produce 50% of the CO2 and they will continue to leverage the disparity at the expense of the poorer nations. The 2 degrees C limit is nothing more than political posturing. The world isn't screwed, it's humans.
Last edited by jonc; 14 December 2015 at 09:14 PM.
can you explain what the exact meaning is of "statistically significant"
Yep I can. Its the degree of risk you are willing to take when you reject the null hypothesis when it is actually true (type I error). Typically α =5% but this is arbitrary (usually choosen because it corresponds to outside 2 std devs)
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
all deniers chose the year 1998, and the RSS data set - because the can manufacture a "cooling" meme
(large graph snipped)
scientists look at the 30 year trend - not short term variations
Yep I can. Its the degree of risk you are willing to take when you reject the null hypothesis when it is actually true (type I error). Typically α =5% but this is arbitrary (usually choosen because it corresponds to outside 2 std devs)
You can put up funny videos and links to support your point of view, that's fine. I can to the same and put up equally convincing stats and graphs ( here's one that is equally compelling http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the...rature-swings/)
But my main argument isn't whether the temperatures are rising or whether CO2 is a green house gas. My argument is AGW and question the science behind it. There are still a lot of unanswered questions and despite what the pro AGW think, the science is far from settled. It's blind arrogance to suggest that humans can save the world from "catastrophic" climate change with an arbitrary percentage reduction in CO2 to prevent an equally arbitrary rise in global temperature. 10% of the richest nations produce 50% of the CO2 and they will continue to leverage the disparity at the expense of the poorer nations. The 2 degrees C limit is nothing more than political posturing. The world isn't screwed, it's humans.
All that article says is climate has changed in the past - it has been hotter with lower CO2 and colder with higher CO2
Again strawman - climate scientist know this
What climate scientist are trying to understand is the mechanism that explain by the rapid rise in global temperatures in the minuscule timeframes - not represented in that article
"Ocean acidification is hypothesized to have a negative impact on coral reef ecosystems, but to understand future potential impacts it is necessary to understand the natural variability and controls of coral reef biogeochemistry. Here we present a 5-y study from the Bermuda coral reef platform that demonstrates how rapid interannual acidification events on the local reef scale are driven by shifts in reef biogeochemical processes toward increasing net calcification and net respiration. These biogeochemical shifts are possibly linked to offshore productivity that ultimately may be controlled by large-scale climatological and oceanographic processes.
and my bold
"Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) has acidified open-ocean surface waters by 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times. Despite unequivocal evidence of ocean acidification (OA) via open-ocean measurements for the past several decades, it has yet to be documented in near-shore and coral reef environments. "
bt listen its by James Delingpole and we know he does not read the science
Plenty of debate about CO2 but not much about methane produced from Livestock farming practises. Arnie's at least spoken up about it even though major charities such as Friends of The Earth, etc seem a bit coy on the subject (coughs funded by lobbyists coughs again). Given that it accounts for 26% of greenhouse gases.....it should be debated more. Anyway....I need to fart.
12 September 2013, 03:04 PM
)
