What's the most convincing piece of data showing climate change is real?

Computer Science Student

I don't want any of the usual hyperbole diagrams or quoting statistics on emissions, greenhouse gases etc.

I just want to see that the climate's change in temperature can be shown to be changing in a statistically significant way.

Silentcorner

The history of the planet?

Computer Science Student

Silentcorner wrote: »

The history of the planet?

What? The climate has always changed. So what I am asking for is to show that the current changes are significant.

HeidiHeidi

It being nearly 20 degrees Celsius in Antarctica this week?

Jonybgud

Computer Science Student wrote: »

I don't want any of the usual hyperbole diagrams or quoting statistics on emissions, greenhouse gases etc.

I just want to see that the climate's change in temperature can be shown to be changing in a statistically significant way.

It doesn't matter what we say Donald, we won't convince you.....

ROAAAR

I guess the significantly less amount of ice remaining in the north pole compared to 30 years ago.

Computer Science Student

ROAAAR wrote: »

I guess the significantly less amount of ice remaining in the north pole compared to 30 years ago.

But come on man 30 years relative to the age of the universe, that is definitely not a reasonable reason to say it is significant, right?

JoeFritzl

Actually I have nothing. Any statistic I can provide will not be in any way relevant to the history of the world. I could tell you the generic increase in storms, increasing temperatures and the latest readings from Antarctica but this is all completely out of context and can only be compared to the past few years.

I guess any significant change in temperature will always be stumped by historical readings - it's never been as cold as it was during the ice age, and we still don't know what caused that.

I would however say that I think there's a lot of merit to climate change discussions, we are seeing some increases, but it has happened in the past. Climate change has itself changed to encompass overfishing, increases in storms and a variety of other things no longer to do with just temperatures. Humans are responsible for a lot of it, but not all. And certainly a lot of these changes have nothing to do with green house emissions, we still need a lot more research.

JoeFritzl

ROAAAR wrote: »

I guess the significantly less amount of ice remaining in the north pole compared to 30 years ago.

I am actually a member of the Green Party and the reason we never use this as proof is because the ice age was more significant by a magnitude. Ice has been melting for a long time, it's what ice does. We know it's melting at alarming rates but we need to pinpoint what the true cause of this is. It could very well begin to get colder again in the near future. The actual graph we look at these days is the graph of the increase/decrease of ice over time. This is the derivative of ice melted per day over time. We don't have much historical data to compare this with, but it seems to be a sinusoidal and we expect the ice to begin freezing again.

Climate change is no longer about global warming and we sort of accept that. We are more about the environment now and trying to prevent litter/clean up our waters and prevent overfishing. It's also very important that we move to greener forms of energy as it's more cost effective long term.

Duke of Url

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas.

The Industrial Age is pumping billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere.

Trees absorb Co2 and produce oxygen.

Fock it. We cut the trees down too.

Ice absorbs Co2 also but that sh1ts melting.

Rocks absorb Co2 but we’re smashing that crap up too.

Co2 has gone nuts in the past 50 years never measured at this quantity in history

Again to the first sentence
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas

Fr_Dougal

Computer Science Student wrote: »

I don't want any of the usual hyperbole diagrams or quoting statistics on emissions, greenhouse gases etc.

I just want to see that the climate's change in temperature can be shown to be changing in a statistically significant way.

The end of the first ice age.

Computer Science Student

Duke of Url wrote: »

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas.

The Industrial Age is pumping billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere.

Trees absorb Co2 and produce oxygen.

Fock it. We cut the trees down too.

Ice absorbs Co2 also but that sh1ts melting.

Rocks absorb Co2 but we’re smashing that crap up too.

Co2 has gone nuts in the past 50 years never measured at this quantity in history

Again to the first sentence
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas

This is an intriguing argument. Would you mind supporting the diagram with a research paper or similar delving into the raw data. Visually it definitely is statistically significant, but I would like to see how the data was prepared to get there.

Duke of Url

Duke of Url wrote: »

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas.

The Industrial Age is pumping billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere.

Trees absorb Co2 and produce oxygen.

Fock it. We cut the trees down too.

Ice absorbs Co2 also but that sh1ts melting.

Rocks absorb Co2 but we’re smashing that crap up too.

Co2 has gone nuts in the past 50 years never measured at this quantity in history

Again to the first sentence
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas

This. If you want to see a runaway greenhouse gas effect, check out venus.

Computer Science Student

Computer Science Student wrote: »

I don't want any of the usual hyperbole diagrams or quoting statistics on emissions, greenhouse gases etc.

So, no complicated facts or data, just a nice word picture for you, . Do you want us to sing you a lullaby about climate change ?

Ipso

Given that any measures to combat it have a positive impact on a non climate level, I’d almost say any evidence for it is irrelevant.

Duke of Url

Computer Science Student wrote: »

This is an intriguing argument. Would you mind supporting the diagram with a research paper or similar delving into the raw data. Visually it definitely is statistically significant, but I would like to see how the data was prepared to get there.

Info and raw data here

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Computer Science Student

https://www.johnenglander.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CO2%20550my%20Extinction%20Chart%20from%20Ward.jpg

jaxxx

Global population of trees has been more than halved since the dawn of humans. If you even have a tiny bit of knowledge as to the role that trees play on the planet, then that should be enough. Need more? Then you're an idiot [not directed at you OP, just in general].

Stevieluvsye

Fcuk off to the weather forum or that mad kip current affairs with this ****e. After hours has been poisoned with that flack thread already

Capt'n Midnight

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The end of the first ice age.

The Ice Age ended on July 19th, 9724 BC , probably about 3 ish.

11,703 years before 2000 AD the climate flipped back into a warmer mode where it has remained ever since.


Or did it?

In a geological sense, we are still in an ice age as there is still ice in Antarctica and Greenland. The Antarctic ice sheet is roughly 35 million years old, and the Greenland one is roughly 1.5 million years old. Before 35 million years ago there were no ice sheets at all. We have to go back to the Permian period some 270 millions years back to find another period on Earth with significant ice volumes.

Quantum Erasure

Computer Science Student wrote: »

https://www.johnenglander.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CO2%20550my%20Extinction%20Chart%20from%20Ward.jpg

.

Would you mind supporting the diagram with a research paper or similar delving into the raw data. Visually it definitely is statistically significant, but I would like to see how the data was prepared to get there.

nthclare

There's as much evidence that the climate is changing as much as the weather changes.
As there is in a victorian winter postcard.

One massive volcanic eruption could change the climate for the foreseeable future, some idiots think a butterfly could cause a hurricane.

The climate is being measured only in the last 100 years or so.

30 years isn't enough to compile proper evidence.

Rufeo

I would say all the gas that's being produced by the "what's the etiquette here" thread

Larbre34

I was skeptical enough, but I did a bit of research myself and the correlation between the industrialisation of the planet and the rate of change in temperature and CO2 levels versus the historical rates of change evident in ice cores is undeniable.

The one piece of evidence I would point to is the change in temperature, oxygen levels and salination of the oceans, its too great to be denied or ignored.

moonage

Duke of Url wrote: »

CO2 levels got dangerously low in the past and life on Earth was nearly doomed. (At around 150ppm plants can't survive.)

CO2 is the gas of life and it's great to see levels so high, resulting in a greening of the planet.

Sunny Disposition

I presume climate change is happening, but only because of people like Professor John Sweeney who seem to have studied it a lot and come to that conclusion.
It is awful that people who haven’t a clue about it no more than myself start lecturing others about it on the basis of a book they read or something they saw on TV.
The country is losing its way over the environment. Men in court for cutting turf today, but virtue signallers like Eamon Ryan lecture everyone despite taking unnecessary flights and driving 2.5 litre vehicles. Mad, Ted.
https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2020/ill-put-my-hands-up-i-went-to-climate-summit-in-spain-by-plane-green-party-leader-eamon-ryan-38874076.html

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This. If you want to see a runaway greenhouse gas effect, check out venus.

Re The whole 'runaway' thing much beloved of some

This is what they say about 'runaway' greenhouse gas effect

"a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."

Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

And ...

Venus-like conditions on the Earth require a large long-term forcing that is unlikely to occur until the sun brightens by a few tens of percents, which will take a few billion years

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3785813/

JoeFritzl

Deleted User wrote: »

So, no complicated facts or data, just a nice word picture for you, . Do you want us to sing you a lullaby about climate change ?

This attitude definitely doesn't help anyone.

mickdw

Serious question looking for a serious answer and I realise this might look like a silly question but how do we know what the 'correct climate condition for the planet is?
We had the ice age. We came out of the ice age with a massive ice melt. Was the planet healthier when in the iced state. What caused that major change - is it a better healthier planet after the ice age? Should we try to go back to ice age?
When were we at the greenest?
Maybe we have not yet reached peak green state for the planet - a couple of degrees temp rise might not literally be the end of the world, maybe we would lose a percentage of land mass to the sea but we can certainly Engineer our way out of sea level rises by adjusting the built environment faster than they would happen.
Maybe this is all needless panic and man is only yet steering the planet to it's most favourable condition.
Maybe man has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change and dispite what is seen as our worst efforts, a natural cycle of the sun could bring about much more change than man ever could.

JoeFritzl

As previously stated, it can be summarized to a sinusoidal graph. It has its peaks and its lows. Its nodes and anti-nodes. Its crests and troughs.

This is how temperature has been changing over time, and it's natural. We can't necessarily say that it's as a result of carbon emissions or as a result of our distance to the sun. We are in constant orbit and the earth's positions to the sun is never a constant, and it is always changing. Some centuries we will move significantly closer, other centuries significantly farther away.

The real thing we should accept is that renewable electricity and caring for the environment is important. Whether climate change is really happening or not is irrelevant to this point; it's for the scientists to argue and they still continue to argue over this. We still haven't convinced all of the top scientists that this is true. Part of science is to question and I welcome OP's curiosity and his willingness to question even the most solidified of opinions in society. And he's right, it is no longer the truth that we once thought it to be. Recent research in recent years has indicated a plethora of alternative reasons for the warming of our oceans and we are still investigating this. Only time will tell, but until then we will make the basic changes needed, such as moving to electric cars, which is a productive and progressive decision which will actually benefit us financially, and could potentially help the environment if fossil fuels really are causing so much damage.

For an interesting scientific read, and the source of the above image, check out: https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

"Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!"

Church on Tuesday

Look outside your window.

Duke of Url

moonage wrote: »

CO2 levels got dangerously low in the past and life on Earth was nearly doomed. (At around 150ppm plants can't survive.)

CO2 is the gas of life and it's great to see levels so high, resulting in a greening of the planet.

Can you expand on the Greening of the planet?

Are you saying the Earth is greener now then over the past 200,000 years?

Larbre34

JoeFritzl wrote: »

As previously stated, it can be summarized to a sinusoidal graph. It has its peaks and its lows. Its nodes and anti-nodes. Its crests and troughs.

400,000 year scale illustrated in that fashion is simply bogus. Why not make it 4.5 billion years and it'll be much toastier early on and everyone will be very relieved.

The rate of change in average global temperature since the industrialisation of the western world in the mid-19th Century and more acutely since the mid-20th, is UNPRECEDENTED.

Glacial and geological markers give us about a 100,000 year reliable reference, or about half the span of the existence of anatomically modern humans on Earth. We also have sufficiently advanced observations from about 1850 to account for and separate out from the trend, the anomalous effects on temperature of solar fluctuations and significant volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa, Tambora, Pinatubo etc.

The planet does experience major spontaneous (natural) temperature shifts through time, but the demonstrable rate of change in recent times against the average for human prehistory and separated from quantifiable natural influences is a scientific slam dunk. In other words, not coincidental.

Edgarfrndly

I think once you understand how humans can affect the planet's climate, the data becomes more important.

The sun's energy enters earth, warms the planet and then reflected back out as infrared radiation. The wavelengths between the sun's energy and the energy being reflected back out into space from the earth are different.

Greenhouse gases partially trap some infrared radiation, which in turn is reflected back to the planet. This cyclic effect causes the planet to warm.

CO2 is an issue because it stays in the atmosphere for a relatively long period of time. So it has an accumulative effect.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that greenhouse gases warm the planet. We know that we are increasing atmospheric CO2, while at the same time chopping down larges areas of forest that would naturally act as a carbon sink.

So what you're really looking for is a convincing piece of data to show that the above is false. Which you won't find.

If you're looking for visual evidence, you can look at a multitude of satellite images of low-lying islands to see their area loss because of a rise in the oceans, from the warming of the planet.

I would also say there's a few misconceptions around climate change.

No scientist has ever said the planet's climate doesn't naturally change. What they are saying is that the current rate of change is attributed to human activity because it deviates outside all trends prior to the industrial revolution.

topper75

JoeFritzl wrote: »

I am actually a member of the Green Party and the reason we never use this as proof is because the ice age was more significant by a magnitude. Ice has been melting for a long time, it's what ice does. We know it's melting at alarming rates but we need to pinpoint what the true cause of this is. It could very well begin to get colder again in the near future. The actual graph we look at these days is the graph of the increase/decrease of ice over time. This is the derivative of ice melted per day over time. We don't have much historical data to compare this with, but it seems to be a sinusoidal and we expect the ice to begin freezing again.

Climate change is no longer about global warming and we sort of accept that. We are more about the environment now and trying to prevent litter/clean up our waters and prevent overfishing. It's also very important that we move to greener forms of energy as it's more cost effective long term.

I think I am actually shocked by the sense, rationality, and level-headedness in this post :eek: I suppose I'm just weary of alarmist hysteria and brow-beating over many years from Green quarters. Second para in particular is absolutely on the money. Because those are the realms in which people alive today can set achievable goals that will yield visible and immediate results. I'd like to see an international ban on super trawlers ASAP and I think we Irish can do so much better on litter and waste.

Computer Science Student

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I think once you understand how humans can affect the planet's climate, the data becomes more important.

The sun's energy enters earth, warms the planet and then reflected back out as infrared radiation. The wavelengths between the sun's energy and the energy being reflected back out into space from the earth are different.

Greenhouse gases partially trap some infrared radiation, which in turn is reflected back to the planet. This cyclic effect causes the planet to warm.

CO2 is an issue because it stays in the atmosphere for a relatively long period of time. So it has an accumulative effect.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that greenhouse gases warm the planet. We know that we are increasing atmospheric CO2, while at the same time chopping down larges areas of forest that would naturally act as a carbon sink.

So what you're really looking for is a convincing piece of data to show that the above is false. Which you won't find.

If you're looking for visual evidence, you can look at a multitude of satellite images of low-lying islands to see their area loss because of a rise in the oceans, from the warming of the planet.

I would also say there's a few misconceptions around climate change.

No scientist has ever said the planet's climate doesn't naturally change. What they are saying is that the current rate of change is attributed to human activity because it deviates outside all trends prior to the industrial revolution.

I think we all agree that man can have some effect on the climate but I also think that it is quite likely that any effect is pretty close to negligible, especially when you look at graphs that clearly show on a large enough timescale, there is pretty much nothing outlandish going on.

But I am completely aware that, as with all data science, confirmation bias is present on both sides. I am constantly reminded of a quote I once heard throughout these climate change discussions -

'If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything'

I think that it is pretty obvious that some of this is happening when you see graphs supposedly graphing the same thing but telling different stories. I would love to discuss it objectively with people who understand that aspect of the debate - and then the debate becomes more of a debate around how the data is being prepared, and not just look at my picture.

limitedIQ

Computer Science Student wrote: »

I think we all agree that man can have some effect on the climate but I also think that it is quite likely that any effect is pretty close to negligible, especially when you look at graphs that clearly show on a large enough timescale, there is pretty much nothing outlandish going on.

Yeah if you look at data going back a 1000 years (or 400,000 years) then obviously mankind has not had much of an effect on the climate compared to geological events\trends. But it is only the past few hundred years that we really started to affect it.

1 person doesn't make much of a difference to a planets climate but billions of people over the course of a few hundred years should be able to.

Computer Science Student

Computer Science Student wrote: »

. I would love to discuss it objectively with people who understand that aspect of the debate - and then the debate becomes more of a debate around how the data is being prepared, and not just look at my picture.

You're looking for a serious scientific debate on climate change, and you chose After Hours to find it?

JoeFritzl

JoeFritzl wrote: »

I am actually a member of the Green Party

This fairly well illustrates the problems facing the Greens as a cohesive political party. On the one hand you support everything that is good for the world and it's inhabitants, and then you decide to name yourself after a man who imprisoned and raped his own daughter for 24 years.

Doff

Ann Doyle on RTE news in shorts and t-shirt in the middle of January

Source: http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

Titclamp

When it comes to taxing the people its very real. And huge incentives for the multinationals who create the damage being done.

markjbloggs

JoeFritzl wrote: »

I am actually a member of the Green Party and the reason we never use this as proof is because the ice age was more significant by a magnitude. Ice has been melting for a long time, it's what ice does. We know it's melting at alarming rates but we need to pinpoint what the true cause of this is. It could very well begin to get colder again in the near future. The actual graph we look at these days is the graph of the increase/decrease of ice over time. This is the derivative of ice melted per day over time. We don't have much historical data to compare this with, but it seems to be a sinusoidal and we expect the ice to begin freezing again.

Climate change is no longer about global warming and we sort of accept that. We are more about the environment now and trying to prevent litter/clean up our waters and prevent overfishing. It's also very important that we move to greener forms of energy as it's more cost effective long term.

It is this sort of reasoning and pseudo-scientific nonsense that typifies the Green Party. At least you (sort of !) admit global warming hyperbole is not valid. And Green energy is definitely not cheaper though at least you agree the baseline issue is cost !

PS - anyone who does not agree with the climate change scaremongering agenda does not necessarily need to have Donald Trump levels of intellect.

Mattdhg

I'm an environmental science student, and coming from a rural background my father was always very skeptical at everything I had to say, and would often reply with statements like "How do you know science is real?" or "How do you know all the books are right?"

So I broke it down in simple terms, effects he sees. I at least got him to acknowledge the biodiversity crisis. When I was a child growing up in the early 2000s there were an incredible amount of moths, butterflies and other insects outside. And foxes, rabbits, hedgehogs and the occasional badger (albeit flattened in the middle of the road). Since my childhood there has been an obvious and dramatic decrease in all these numbers, and he tearfully agreed. He said nearly every night he leaves the window open while he reads the newspaper in his room and he never notices any moths/daddy long legs coming in. He also said as a child growing up here there were frogs that would emerge out of the boggy land, and go everywhere, often making their way into the house. Minnows lived in the water ways and they'd try catch them in jars. He can't remember the last time he ever saw them, and I never saw them here in my life time at all. Sometimes you just need to put reasoning on things people noticed already. Ask ye're auld wans and they'll probably have a similar tale.

The problem with climate change is that it's so gradual, its hard to pinpoint to a few specific things. You can say the intense weather events but a bad storm will always come now and again. Historically, the rate at which the earth's temperature is rising is unprecedented, and its very hard to stop the knock on reaction. Higher temp = increased water vapour in ear, which is essentially a greenhouse gas and traps more of the sun's rays. And on and on and on

Call Me Jimmy

JoeFritzl wrote: »

I am actually a member of the Green Party and the reason we never use this as proof is because the ice age was more significant by a magnitude. Ice has been melting for a long time, it's what ice does. We know it's melting at alarming rates but we need to pinpoint what the true cause of this is. It could very well begin to get colder again in the near future. The actual graph we look at these days is the graph of the increase/decrease of ice over time. This is the derivative of ice melted per day over time. We don't have much historical data to compare this with, but it seems to be a sinusoidal and we expect the ice to begin freezing again.

Climate change is no longer about global warming and we sort of accept that. We are more about the environment now and trying to prevent litter/clean up our waters and prevent overfishing. It's also very important that we move to greener forms of energy as it's more cost effective long term.

Yes I remember seeing a lot of newspaper articles from the 70s saying 'Ice age is coming' after having a period of warming in the early 20th century. Should we be shocked horrified that planetary phenomena appear cyclical given the relationship to our heat/energy source is cyclical?

vriesmays

Mattdhg wrote: »

I'm an environmental science student, and coming from a rural background my father was always very skeptical at everything I had to say, and would often reply with statements like "How do you know science is real?" or "How do you know all the books are right?"

Do you know what % of the atmosphere is carbon.

Edgarfrndly

Computer Science Student wrote: »

I think we all agree that man can have some effect on the climate but I also think that it is quite likely that any effect is pretty close to negligible

Based on what evidence exactly?

Has the rate of change in the planet's temperature changed since the industrial revolution? Or has the curve remained consistent?

I mean, for you to form this view which is in direct contrast of well established scientific consensus - you must have some extremely compelling evidence in support of your views, right?

Titclamp

That women caused more damage than men

Chinasea

Windscreen of your car. 30 years ago if you drove from through the country your windscreen was covered in midgets etc.

Chinasea

Chinasea wrote: »

Windscreen of your car. 30 years ago if you drove from through the country your windscreen was covered in midgets etc.

Rural dwarfs were feckers for that. Wouldn't even have the decency to stick their little thumbs out for a lift, just piled onto the winsdcreen.

I'm glad they're gone!

alchemist33

For After Hours, this thread has actually been an informative and interesting read.