The Climate Change discussion thread

sponsoredwalk · 11-10-2010 1:59pm #1

I hereby initiate the forum with a thread on the topic that most laypeople to
the environmental sciences would be familiar with - Global Warming.

We all know this is a hotly debated topic in the media but it comes as a
surprise to many considering the fact that

No scientific body of national or international standing has
maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting
the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current
non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations also hold
non-committal positions.
link

So why all the fuss?

Personally I'm not well versed in the evidence either way on this issue &
as I gather most people aren't but I'd like to learn about it so a thread
devoted to intelligent presentations on this topic would do the public a
world of good.

Why not research the topic yourself?

Well, I'm sure we all could do that but why wouldn't it be a good idea to
devote a thread to videos and documents from people who know the
content beforehand & know it's an intelligent and informed presentation
of facts thereby treating the laypersonage to something proper?
I think it's a good idea! This is a forum on the environmental sciences,
so one would wager that the posters in here would come across the
serious stuff. If I wanted to learn more about the standard model of
particle physics without being versed in the necessary mathematics I
can always watch a video that has more detail than your regular source
while not being too taxing & I think this kind of content would be good

So, have at you!

tbh · 11-10-2010 2:43pm

Please be aware that any / all threads created before the charter are subject to deletion once the charter has been produced. Ye might want to hold off putting any amount of work into threads until that happens.

sponsoredwalk · 11-10-2010 2:55pm

Do you want to delete it then and I'll pm one of the forum mods with
this same post once the charter is made and see if it's a possibility?

tbh · 11-10-2010 3:06pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Do you want to delete it then and I'll pm one of the forum mods with
this same post once the charter is made and see if it's a possibility?

I'll temp delete it and afterwards if it's ok it can be restored. Not judging the validity or otherwise of the thread btw, OP, just wanted to let you know.

El Siglo · 22-11-2010 12:01pm

Thread is now undeleted, new rules have been made to the forum charter.

All the best,

El Siglo.

Turtwig · 22-11-2010 12:30pm

Ahh feck sake sponsored your title needs changing this is a scientific forum and no scientists subscribes to the idea that science proves anything. Instead they only agree that science can disprove stuff. A more correct title would be "Global Warming Acceptable Scientific Theory, or Invalid Hypothesis?)

With regard to the scientific view the sides can mainly be divided into these :

Climate Deniers - Earth is not Warming!
Climate Pseudoskeptics - Oooh look snow see the climate models are wrong.
Climate Skeptics - Well now, there is a well constructed theory but it is not without its flaws and imperfections. I accept or reject this theory.
Climate Cultists - The world is 100% definitely warming as a result of human emissions this is 100% proven fact!

I would prefer if these discussion can be limited to an exploration along the "Skeptic" line.

El Siglo · 22-11-2010 12:54pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh feck sake sponsored your title needs changing this is a scientific forum and no scientists subscribes to the idea that science proves anything. Instead they only agree that science can disprove stuff. A more correct title would be "Global Warming Acceptable Scientific Theory, or Invalid Hypothesis?)

With regard to the scientific view the sides can mainly be divided into these :

Climate Deniers - Earth is not Warming!
Climate Pseudoskeptics - Oooh look snow see the climate models are wrong.
Climate Skeptics - Well now, there is a well constructed theory but it is not without its flaws and imperfections. I accept or reject this theory.
Climate Cultists - The world is 100% definitely warming as a result of human emissions this is 100% proven fact!

I would prefer if these discussion can be limited to an exploration along the "Skeptic" line.

I might just do that now actually.;)

blue5000 · 29-11-2010 4:03pm

Does anybody on here think that the cold weather we are having might be caused by weakening of the North Atlantic Drift? With a lot of polar and Greenland ice melted in the recent past, leading to extra fresh water in the North Atlantic, could the NAD be affected long term? Any ideas?:cool:

El Siglo · 29-11-2010 5:05pm

blue5000 wrote: »

Does anybody on here think that the cold weather we are having might be caused by weakening of the North Atlantic Drift? With a lot of polar and Greenland ice melted in the recent past, leading to extra fresh water in the North Atlantic, could the NAD be affected long term? Any ideas?:cool:

No, according to the weather last night it was due to easterly winds which tend to be cold (I was watching the BBC weather so I could be wrong!). If the NADW (North Atlantic Deep Water) was to 'switch off' you would know about it. I'm not saying that there isn't an effect by such things as melting of the Greenland ice sheet etc... but I doubt it's the NADW. The last time the NADW shut off it was known as the Younger Dryas. However, even this is debatable but Broecker and Denton (1990) did a really good article which supported such an event, this website gives a good overview of what they wrote about in that article.

On a side note, this website is absolutely brilliant for getting weather data; http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~brugge/

The citation for the Broecker article is:

Broecker, W. S., and Denton, G., 1990. What drives glacial cycles? Scientific American, 262 (January), 49–56.

gullon · 30-11-2010 2:02pm

What effect has the ozone hole have on climate change over the past thirty years?

El Siglo · 07-12-2010 12:20pm

gullon wrote: »

What effect has the ozone hole have on climate change over the past thirty years?

I generally don't trust websites but this one is rather interesting, better to read peer reviewed articles but it does give a concise overview. It was one of those problems (along with acid rain) that got the 'general' public and politicians to accept the fact that humans can have an impact on the environment (i.e. it's not so big that people can't effect it).

Howlin · 16-12-2010 10:29pm

well i believe in climate change but not man-made climate change
almost every scientist will say there is climate change happening but its get heated over if its caused by man or by mother nature

some reaons why i dont beleive it is that the first chairman if the IPCC Sir John Houghton said “unless we announce disaster no one will listen”
not all scientists agree with man made climate,
ali gore's movie has at least 30 mistakes with it even do it is still being shown in schools and got a prize for it

the IPPC (international panal on climate change) lastest report has a few mistake in it.

There was a med-evil warming period during the medevil time and it was warmer then than now as greenland was green and food that we cant grow there now could have been grown

El Siglo · 17-12-2010 3:05pm

Howlin wrote: »

well i believe in climate change but not man-made climate change
almost every scientist will say there is climate change happening but its get heated over if its caused by man or by mother nature

some reaons why i dont beleive it is that the first chairman if the IPCC Sir John Houghton said “unless we announce disaster no one will listen”
not all scientists agree with man made climate,
ali gore's movie has at least 30 mistakes with it even do it is still being shown in schools and got a prize for it

the IPPC (international panal on climate change) lastest report has a few mistake in it.

There was a med-evil warming period during the medevil time and it was warmer then than now as greenland was green and food that we cant grow there now could have been grown

As a boards user, this is how I feel after reading that.

As an Environmental and Earth Scientist...

Firstly, the Houghton quote is bullshit, that was all made up.

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

What are the 30 mistakes in an inconvenient truth?

There was a medieval warm period, however there have been periods like this before (e.g. such as the Holocene Climatic Optimum) but they're rather minor when you look at isotopic variation in ice cores etc... over the course of the Quaternary. The medieval warm period was followed up by the mini-ice age of that lasted about 250 years but these are isolated and can be the result of obliquity of earth rotation etc... The established and proven thing is that;

C02 insulates,
CO2 correlates with temperature,
Hence CO2 or other green house gases are responsible.

If there is no human affect, why is there isotopic enrichment of 12C in the atmosphere? Do you know what I mean here? 12C is a stable isotope of carbon which is fossilised (i.e. oil, coal etc...) yet, 13C has been found to becoming depleted while there is enrichment of 12C. It's not as if we look at "just carbon", we can find that specific isotopes related to specific pools are present.

Scientists are sceptical about a lot of things but within reason, 50 years ago plate tectonics was bullshit but even though we can take it as a given there are still people who believe in a flat earth, would you say that they're right to take such an opinion? Also, the consensus is fairly established for good reason on Climate Change.

Duiske · 20-12-2010 5:03pm

El Siglo wrote: »

C02 insulates,
CO2 correlates with temperature,
Hence CO2 or other green house gases are responsible.

Quick question. On that graph, which line is temperature, blue or red ?

El Siglo · 20-12-2010 8:37pm

Duiske wrote: »

Quick question. On that graph, which line is temperature, blue or red ?

Red is CO2 and blue is temperature (as a far as I can recall). It's a bit of a shit graph (not annoted the best), go on the NOAA website in one of the links provided, there's better ones than that (even though they produced that graph).

Howlin · 20-12-2010 10:17pm

theres a link to 35 mistakes
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/

also the amount of co2 in the atmosphere was higher in the past and the temperature was not through the roof

during the 1940's scientists were worried about global cooling, but since the 1970's they are worried about global warming and recently scientists have been calling it climate change as the global average temperature has not being getting hotter

Also we have been told that the earths temperature has been getting hotter, but what referance do we have as we have only be there taking physical data for a while and dont we need more physical data than what we have before we can conclude to anything

that is an article that raises a good question
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/faster-than-everyplace-else/

Also why were scientists saying that we wood get less snow and our winters wood be warmer and why hasnt the climate models showed us that there wood be snow in winters?

riffmongous · 20-12-2010 11:20pm

Howlin wrote: »

Also why were scientists saying that we wood get less snow and our winters wood be warmer and why hasnt the climate models showed us that there wood be snow in winters?

I presume they meant statistically, as in climate not meteorology

toucanbrew · 21-12-2010 3:20am

[PHP]also the amount of co2 in the atmosphere was higher in the past and the temperature was not through the roof[/PHP]

For sure atmospheric co2 has been higher in the past, periods of glaciation have even coincided with such periods when atmospheric co2 was higher than now......BUT......co2 is not the only thing that determines our climate. The sun is a major driver and interactions between solar strength and co2 in the atmosphere (as well as several other climate drivers) give us our climate. During the periods you are referring to less of the sun's energy was reaching the earth than is reaching it now i.e our climate was not as warm as now (affected by what is known as the Milankovitch cycle).

[PHP]during the 1940's scientists were worried about global cooling, but since the 1970's they are worried about global warming and recently scientists have been calling it climate change as the global average temperature has not being getting hotter[/PHP]

Global average temperatures are rising, climate change is a term that is used because warming is not the only problem we are faced with, increased intensity of storms, changing in wind and water circulation patterns and changes in el nino and la nina are also being seen among other changes. The global cooling talk in the 60s/70s was based on slight temperature change over only a twenty year period or so and while it received great attention in the media the scientific community never gave huge credence to the idea and most scientists were predicting future warming. The slight cooling trend was put down as a blip possibly due to interacting climate drivers, a 20 year trend is certainly not enough to decide the earth is cooling whereas global warming is based on a much longer time-scale.

Also we have been told that the earths temperature has been getting hotter, but what referance do we have as we have only be there taking physical data for a while and dont we need more physical data than what we have before we can conclude to anything

1850 is the general reference used and since then temperatures have risen by about 0.7 degrees celsius, I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that the average global temperature is increasing. How long do you feel we should wait until we accept the evidence for increasing temperatures? Global warming is already causing problems and we are commited to at least 1.5 degrees of warming due to greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere already. The earth is already showing effects of global warming/climate change, why should we wait for more warming and more impacts before we try and change things?

[PHP]Also why were scientists saying that we wood get less snow and our winters wood be warmer and why hasnt the climate models showed us that there wood be snow in winters?[/PHP]

The current cold-snap and that experienced earlier this year are examples of extreme weather events which occurred LOCALLY and do not contradict evidence for a warming earth, global average temperature for 2010 will still be higher than most of what has gone before. The difference is between weather and climate.

toucanbrew · 21-12-2010 3:24am

Oops, need to work on my quoting skills it seems. S'pose there's a first time for everything though.

gullon · 21-12-2010 11:16am

....but Houghton did say the following:

Houghton warns that God may induce man to mend his ways with a disaster.

“God tries to coax and woo, but he also uses disasters. Human sin may be involved; the effect will be the same.”

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Duiske · 21-12-2010 3:17pm

El Siglo wrote: »

Red is CO2 and blue is temperature (as a far as I can recall). It's a bit of a shit graph (not annoted the best), go on the NOAA website in one of the links provided, there's better ones than that (even though they produced that graph).

Theres a slight problem with those graphs. The C02 rise's are following temperature rise's, not the other way around.

El Siglo · 21-12-2010 5:31pm

Duiske wrote: »

Theres a slight problem with those graphs. The C02 rise's are following temperature rise's, not the other way around.

I wrote that on a computer in bus aras while waiting for my second bus home, I wasn't exactly in a position to consult the relevant literature while there.

In bed sick on the iPod, so I'll be terse.
Milankovich is very important to remember.
Current cold snap is what it is, a cold snap. It's when it becomes established that we have a problem.

On a mod capacity, This is important though; if you quote somebody, I want to see a reference. Already Houghton has been misquoted, so please folks provide a link etc...

gullon · 21-12-2010 6:50pm

El Siglo wrote: »

On a mod capacity, This is important though; if you quote somebody, I want to see a reference. Already Houghton has been misquoted, so please folks provide a link etc...

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf

El Siglo · 23-12-2010 6:04pm

gullon wrote: »

....but Houghton did say the following:

Houghton warns that God may induce man to mend his ways with a disaster.

“God tries to coax and woo, but he also uses disasters. Human sin may be involved; the effect will be the same.”

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

I think you're taking Houghton out of context there and it's very easy to dress up something like that as science because it's a scientist saying it. For example, have you ever heard of Kurt Wise? He's an American Geologist, he has a BA in Geology from the University of Chicago, MA and PhD from Harvard in Geology, yet he is a young earth creationist. This is an extreme example but it demonstrates that not all Geologists are young earth creationists (obviously) but that not everything a scientist says should be taken as 'gospel', hence informed debate and hypotheses formulation.
However, with regards Houghton, he was trying to (from my interpretation) through his own religiosity (he is a Welsh presbyterian) tie together that we (as in people, humanity) are custodians of the earth and that in some ways we need to be shocked into doing stuff, I've heard this argument before by many environmental scientists, it's the frog in the boiling water argument. He wasn't making a scientific point and it was a newspaper interview with him, as opposed to a peer reviewed article or book or IPCC report. He is allowed to have his own personal beliefs etc... but the evidence is there, and 20,000 scientists have backed him up. You hardly think he writes the IPCC reports all by himself?

I think though, that this phrase pretty much sums things up;

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level"

One person can be wrong I am the first to admit that. However, thousands of scientists can't be, and I think the odds are astronomically high for them to be so.

24-12-2010 7:20pm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

the simultaneous rise in temperatures on Earth and Mars indicates a natural—and not a human—cause for global warming. But the vast majority of experts maintain that humans are responsible for Earth's climate changes and that the Mars phenomenon is mere coincidence.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

hoser expat · 30-12-2010 4:21pm

Howlin wrote: »

theres a link to 35 mistakes
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/

Not so sure about those mistakes....I'd have to watch it again.

But I can add at least 3 sloppy errors that I noticed on my own.

1. One of his cartoons suggests that shortwave radiation is the outgoing radiation trapped by greenhouse gases.
2. His pictures of species gone extinct includes the ceaolocanth (sp?)...not extinct but was thought to be millions of years ago.
3. His comments about the drunken forest in Alaska are downright wrong. The trees tip over frequently because the permafrost active layer is too thin for adequate rooting. Warming would increase the active layer thickness and add a measure of stability to the roots.

Overall a sloppy effort, but then again he's making it for populist appeal.

enfant terrible · 01-01-2011 1:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Is it possible humans caused the temperature rise on Mars too?

cagefan · 05-02-2011 1:01pm

Howlin wrote: »

well i believe in climate change but not man-made climate change
almost every scientist will say there is climate change happening but its get heated over if its caused by man or by mother nature

some reaons why i dont beleive it is that the first chairman if the IPCC Sir John Houghton said “unless we announce disaster no one will listen”
not all scientists agree with man made climate,
ali gore's movie has at least 30 mistakes with it even do it is still being shown in schools and got a prize for it

the IPPC (international panal on climate change) lastest report has a few mistake in it.

There was a med-evil warming period during the medevil time and it was warmer then than now as greenland was green and food that we cant grow there now could have been grown

I think what scientists are worried about is not that the climate is changing, it has changed frequently in the past and depends on numerous factors such as solar output, the earths orbit, the amount of snow on the planet ( which is related to the other two). They are worried about the rate it is heating. we have experienced two significant warming periods globally. One from the 1920's to 1940's ( if my memory is correct) and one from 1970's to present. The break in warming may be due to the release of CFC's into the atmosphere causing reducing the amount of heat getting into the system.

However,with the Montreal protocol CFC's have largely been eliminated and thus thus leading to an increase in global warming again. CFC explanation is only one, unproven explanation for the cooling period in the 40's. Of the warming period, 1998, 2005 and 2009 have been the warmest on record. In relation to the argument that not all scientists agree on global warming. This is true. But this is also true in many of the other scientific findings we all accept such as the links between smoking and lung cancer. What is true, is that the majority of scientists believe in man made global warming as the IPCC report proves - as it is a meta-study of all the data on the subject. In regards, Al Gores movie. This was not peer reviewed and I would not consider him an authority on the subject especially - while it is great to have someone in his position highlighting the threat - he probably did more harm in the long run.

In relation to it being anthropogenic or naturally occurring, their is certainly a relationship between CO2 release and warming. The industrial revolution began in the late 1800's and and has increased Co2 concentration from approx 280ppm to 387ppm-ish to date. As can be seen from the graph someone posted that the increases in temperature usually occur after increases in C02. It is also worth remembering that millions of years ago, the CO2 levels were the most abundant gas. At this time, temperatures are thought to be far exceeding todays yet the solar output was suggested to not be as large as it is today. A tenuous link at best, but still it is food for thought. What the relationship is exactly is not proven - while it is generally accepted that C02 prevents heat reflected from the ground getting out through the atmosphere.

The IPCC I think made 2 minor mistakes in the last report. One relating to the sea level height in the Holland and the other in regards glaciers retreat in the Himalaya mountain range. With regards the Holland mistake, this information was provided by the Dutch EPA so while it was stupid - not all responsibility can be labelled at the IPCC. The glacier thing was pretty poor on their part. all the other alleged mistakes have been vindicated and a result of either poor journalism or an attempt to smear the IPCC

Lastly in regard the medieval warming period, this is true, people lived on greenland and agriculture was good there. However, over the next 200 year the climate changed so drastically that it became uninhabitable and unreachable due to sea ice. This just illustrates how sensitive the climate is to change and doesn't prove that man-made climate change isn't happening.

Anyway, hope someone finds this interesting.

Duiske · 13-02-2011 7:19am

I've only just come across this interview with two scientists, both of whom have been lead author's of IPCC reports. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and an AGW skeptic, and Hadi Dowlatabadi, a physicist and Professor at the University of British Columbia (Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)
It is probably one of the best discussions between people from opposite side's of the AGW debate that I have seen, and is well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

Turtwig · 14-02-2011 12:38pm

Duiske wrote: »

I've only just come across this interview with two scientists, both of whom have been lead author's of IPCC reports. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and an AGW skeptic, and Hadi Dowlatabadi, a physicist and Professor at the University of British Columbia (Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)
It is probably one of the best discussions between people from opposite side's of the AGW debate that I have seen, and is well worth a watch.

<Rational Debate>

The only thing that truly disappointed me about that video was Hadi's comment that he believed the vast majority of climate scientists were idealogue's and entrenched in the message. It's a minority, but unfortunately such is the way of our modern world the media prefers those who appear certain and passionate about our ideas thus providing the illusion to others (including other scientists) that there is a believer/denier aspect to this. Sad but true, the recent exchange between Ryan O'Donnell and Eric Steig, where one side accused the other of being an idealogue before realising they weren't, is an all too uncommon reminder of this. How many times will we see the like's of Marc Morano's vs Paul Watson's on tv/internet before we see Christy and Schmidt having a more rational discussion?

Now who want's to start picking apart the flaws in Lindzen's and Dowlatabadi's arguments?;)

Nabber · 17-02-2011 11:24pm

I think the main problem with global warming is human preception.
It's your basic 'popular theory' becomes fact without ever been proven as factual. There is anoth human basic flaw, the once was 'theory' which has now become fact, has also ben used by some to gain high ground over others. People who recycle, un-plug appliances ect. make it common knowledge to people around them. Openly critise people who don't follow their ways. I liken it to vegans who talk about converting people to veganism. Like it's some sort of higher calling. I tend to cut these people off during their rants, the same way I cut off 'climate change pushers'. I would do the same to some one if they tried to get me to change to Islam or become homosexual. Go about your own business.
I don't want to hear that cow farts are killing butterflys on Chirstmas Island (no actual reference)
Green taxes are not green taxes, they are theory taxes. If global climate change is proven to be stable, not changing or naturally changing, will I get my green taxes back?

To sum it all up guys. I don't wanna be shown a picture of an ice-berg and be told that this is a sign of global warming. I don't wanna see a mother Polar Bear with to cubs and be told my car is melting the ice which she hunts on. It's too far fetched. It can't be proven to be humans. We are not technologically advanced to know it it's us or mother nature.

I say good effort on the theory, lets leave it as theory untill it's proven as fact.

Nabber
(Apologies I didn't have time to check my spelling)

cagefan · 17-02-2011 11:50pm

Hey Nabber

I actually agree with you about people who seem to eager to want to convince you of something, I usually want to walk away from them too. In fact, I normally drive people mad with my cynicism. I am aware of sounding like that about climate change.

However, I disagree with you about it just being a theory etc. The link between lung cancer and smoking is a theory which is widely accepted yet ultimately not proven in fact. However, if a doctor told you to stop smoking or you'll get cancer would you say its just a theory ( an argument presented on horizon program last week)? Climatologists are simply the experts in the field. They can be wrong, but when a scientific consensus is reached its pretty unwise to dismiss it. Equally, do you believe oil companies and lobby groups etc aren't funding research projects to counter act research supporting climate research yet nothing significant to date has really been published ( that I am aware of at least - altho Im open to correction). anyway, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but its unfortunate that people who hold that opinion probably are basing it on gut instincts and non peer reviewed and ultimately unreliable sources

oh and by the way, pictures of polar bears and iceburgs are what the media do, it distracts from the legitimacy of the argument, I'm sure some researchers do it but there's always one really!

riffmongous · 18-02-2011 1:42am

Do you not think human perception can work the other too Nabber? How many people side against AGW simply because of the taxes rather than any scientific reason?

Nabber · 18-02-2011 11:55pm

cagefan wrote: »

Hey Nabber

I actually agree with you about people who seem to eager to want to convince you of something, I usually want to walk away from them too. In fact, I normally drive people mad with my cynicism. I am aware of sounding like that about climate change.

However, I disagree with you about it just being a theory etc. The link between lung cancer and smoking is a theory which is widely accepted yet ultimately not proven in fact. However, if a doctor told you to stop smoking or you'll get cancer would you say its just a theory ( an argument presented on horizon program last week)? Climatologists are simply the experts in the field. They can be wrong, but when a scientific consensus is reached its pretty unwise to dismiss it. Equally, do you believe oil companies and lobby groups etc aren't funding research projects to counter act research supporting climate research yet nothing significant to date has really been published ( that I am aware of at least - altho Im open to correction). anyway, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but its unfortunate that people who hold that opinion probably are basing it on gut instincts and non peer reviewed and ultimately unreliable sources

oh and by the way, pictures of polar bears and iceburgs are what the media do, it distracts from the legitimacy of the argument, I'm sure some researchers do it but there's always one really!

CageFan alsa it's still a theory tho. It's not fact. Another popular theory that was coined 'The Big Bang' has alos lost it's tag of theory, becuse it is popular science.
Like I said, modern science isn't advanced enough to know the sort of impact that humans are having on the planet. Weather in it'self is so unpredictable that we can only predict 48hours max in advance, even then it's not exact.
I have no problem with the idea of the theory, but if you publicly deny 'Global warming' it's like saying I wish the Nazis won.

I can't take global warming seriously. 90% of the people who advocate it don't rally care about the planet, just about what other people think of them for doing it.

It's a mad world....

cagefan · 19-02-2011 12:20pm

Nabber wrote: »

CageFan alsa it's still a theory tho. It's not fact. Another popular theory that was coined 'The Big Bang' has alos lost it's tag of theory, becuse it is popular science.
Like I said, modern science isn't advanced enough to know the sort of impact that humans are having on the planet. Weather in it'self is so unpredictable that we can only predict 48hours max in advance, even then it's not exact.
I have no problem with the idea of the theory, but if you publicly deny 'Global warming' it's like saying I wish the Nazis won.

I can't take global warming seriously. 90% of the people who advocate it don't rally care about the planet, just about what other people think of them for doing it.

It's a mad world....

Fair enough Nabber, your entitled to your opinion. I disagree and think there are flaws in your argument but I don't think I'm going to convince you. Its quite a strange way of looking at the problem - to say its just a theory. As you mentioned the big bang is just a theory, but for that theory to gain acceptance it is torn apart by the scientific community and must be backed up by vast amounts of physical and observable evidence. Its the same for climate science and while you cant say one thing is 100% right, I certainly tend to accept the evidence of people who are far more qualified that me. Its good to question it, but you need to have a evidence as to why you think it is wrong, and that has just not been put forward to date. Thats the scientific method for you - its not perfect and can be wrong but its what we have to work with.

Incidentally, as I am sure you are aware, climate and weather are different things. Climate is looking at the average weather conditions and its far easier to notice a trend that in weather which is daily occurances of rain or whatever. If you interested, go to met eireann, download their climate data for 1961-1990 into an excel sheet and graph the temp. You'll notice a warming trend for the last 30 years. I'm not saying thats significant or not ( others might) but its a starting point where you can see how easy it is to see that the planet is warming and can even be observed in every weather station in Ireland. And thats not a theory. Thats an observable fact. Best of luck anyway.

djpbarry · 22-02-2011 5:14pm

Nabber wrote: »

I don't want to hear that cow farts are killing butterflys on Chirstmas Island (no actual reference)

And that’s the fundamental reason why so many people refuse to accept the possibility of human-induced global warming – it requires us to change.

Nabber wrote: »

To sum it all up guys. I don't wanna be shown a picture of an ice-berg and be told that this is a sign of global warming.

Then don’t read tabloid newspapers (or at least, don’t take them seriously).

Nabber wrote: »

I don't wanna see a mother Polar Bear with to cubs and be told my car is melting the ice which she hunts on. It's too far fetched. It can't be proven to be humans.

That depends on what you mean by “proven”. We can never be 100% certain about anything, but, based on the available evidence (for example, increasing global temperatures, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration correlating with fossil fuel consumption) we can be pretty damn certain that (a) the planet is getting warmer and (b) we are responsible.

Nabber wrote: »

I say good effort on the theory, lets leave it as theory untill it's proven as fact.

How, in your opinion, can the theory be “proven as fact”? What evidence need come to light in order for this point to be reached in your mind?

Nabber wrote: »

CageFan alsa it's still a theory tho. It's not fact. Another popular theory that was coined 'The Big Bang' has alos lost it's tag of theory, becuse it is popular science.

The Big Bang Theory is a hotly-disputed topic – there are several competing theories in the world of theoretical physics. The Big Bang could certainly not be considered scientific fact.

Nabber wrote: »

Like I said, modern science isn't advanced enough to know the sort of impact that humans are having on the planet.

To take an example from recent history, humans were advanced enough to realise they were depleting the ozone layer. They were advanced enough to know that the combustion of certain fuels will ultimately result in acid rainfall. Why can’t we be advanced enough to know that burning fuels results in an increase in atmospheric CO2 and, subsequently, an increase in mean global temperatures? Seems like pretty simple physics to me.

Nabber wrote: »

Weather in it'self is so unpredictable that we can only predict 48hours max in advance, even then it's not exact.

Weather ≠ Climate

Nabber wrote: »

I have no problem with the idea of the theory, but if you publicly deny 'Global warming' it's like saying I wish the Nazis won.

Nobody here is calling you a Nazi, but you’re not doing a terribly good job of explaining your case against AGW. Thus far, all I can conclude is that you disagree with the theory because you don’t like it.

Turtwig · 22-02-2011 5:45pm

cagefan wrote: »

If you interested, go to met eireann, download their climate data for 1961-1990 into an excel sheet and graph the temp. You'll notice a warming trend for the last 30 years. I'm not saying thats significant or not ( others might) but its a starting point where you can see how easy it is to see that the planet is warming and can even be observed in every weather station in Ireland. And thats not a theory. Thats an observable fact. Best of luck anyway.

Just a small little thing. Ireland is not the Earth. Observed Local climate trends are neither proof nor disproof of global warming. Land mass is approximately 29% of this planet's surface, Ireland doesn't even have a full percentage so even though your fact is true, in terms of the global trend it can't really say anything. Global cooling could very well lead to localised cooling in some places and warming in others. Of far more significance is the global mean temperature of Earth which has shown a steady increasing warming trend for the last thirty years.:)

djpbarry · 22-02-2011 6:33pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Just a small little thing. Ireland is not the Earth. Observed Local climate trends are neither proof nor disproof of global warming.

I think perhaps the point was that, if one was so inclined, they could verify the global temperature record for themselves by compiling the necessary (generally publically-available) data. Y’know, if you happened to have a few decades of free time.

El Siglo · 22-02-2011 7:24pm

Thought people might enjoy this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0

cagefan · 23-02-2011 5:59pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Just a small little thing. Ireland is not the Earth. Observed Local climate trends are neither proof nor disproof of global warming. Land mass is approximately 29% of this planet's surface, Ireland doesn't even have a full percentage so even though your fact is true, in terms of the global trend it can't really say anything. Global cooling could very well lead to localised cooling in some places and warming in others. Of far more significance is the global mean temperature of Earth which has shown a steady increasing warming trend for the last thirty years.:)

Your absolutely right, however we know from Sweeney et al and sweeney and fealy that modelling projects increased temperatures in Ireland of varying degrees for all time lines. I was just pointing out that you can see a warming trend consistent with these projections in observable data but like you said the global mean temperature is a far more robust method for assessing climate change.

Hurler on the Ditch · 09-11-2013 12:47pm

If a doctor told you that there was a 95% chance you had Climate Change and 800 other of the worlds most eminent doctors agreed with him - I think you'd stop producing greenhouse gases!

Jernal wrote: »

Ahh feck sake sponsored your title needs changing this is a scientific forum and no scientists subscribes to the idea that science proves anything. Instead they only agree that science can disprove stuff. A more correct title would be "Global Warming Acceptable Scientific Theory, or Invalid Hypothesis?)

With regard to the scientific view the sides can mainly be divided into these :

Climate Deniers - Earth is not Warming!
Climate Pseudoskeptics - Oooh look snow see the climate models are wrong.
Climate Skeptics - Well now, there is a well constructed theory but it is not without its flaws and imperfections. I accept or reject this theory.
Climate Cultists - The world is 100% definitely warming as a result of human emissions this is 100% proven fact!

I would prefer if these discussion can be limited to an exploration along the "Skeptic" line.

Mashtun · 11-11-2013 3:57pm

Firstly i just want to say that i'm not trying to come down on either side and would like to apologise if i'm straying a bit off topic. It's just that i'm wondering what actions can be taken and what will be the best outcome.

Just for arguments sake we'll say all countries make efforts to align themselves with the global push to produce less carbon. This would mean smaller cars producing less CO2, perhaps coal burning stations are sidelined in favour of gas or some other cleaner fuel. Does all this not just mean that the global supply of fossil fuels will just last longer but ultimately end up being burnt and releasing their potential carbon into the atmosphere but just over a more protracted period. I can't see anything stopping us from burning fossil fuels short of some miraculous alternative becoming available in the very immediate future.

Basically i'm asking is there an alternative model that would meet energy needs instead of the current one where we produce less carbon but intend to go on producing it nonetheless?

Hurler on the Ditch · 11-11-2013 10:24pm

Read up on Fee and Dividend. It would work but the possibilities of Politicians implementing it without large numbers of people voting for it are unlikely.

The Climate Change discussion thread

Comments