The Climate Change discussion thread

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.

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 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 ?

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?

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 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.

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.

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 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?;)