nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

climate change

global warming

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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?

[Deleted User]

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

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Computer Science Student

alchemist33 wrote: »

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

Yes, some good discussion with points raised on both sides. I am pleasantly surprised by the relative openness of those who are firm believers in having their views challenged on this.

Whenever I converse publicly on this, it is met with sneers and bemusement, which is really unfortunate. A lot of people tend to think there is only one side to this debate and have no intention of discussing otherwise.

Quantum Erasure

vriesmays wrote: »

Do you know what % of the atmosphere is carbon.

shur, even the ozone layer is less than 0.001% ozone, what use is that at all?

ebbsy

All the cows farting ???

Water John

Very little methane is fart most of it is belching by ruminants.
I see recent research indicates a lot more methane, 40% more, from fossil fuel than previously thought.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/19/oil-gas-industry-far-worse-climate-impact-than-thought-fossil-fuels-methane

mickdw

Chinasea wrote: »

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

I must be in a different countryside because still a huge amount of bugs where I drive.

Gynoid

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?"

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

Serious question. Do you think that the very high levels of chemicals - pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilisers etc - poured onto the land over the last 50ish years may have affected the biodiversity and numbers of insect and wild life? Note the suffix "cide" means 'a killer of'.

Water John

The move from hay meadow to silage, cutting grass and wild flowers at a younger stage, IWT would be the biggest effect on insect and butterfly numbers.

Ultimanemo

This is the map of Europe 20,000 to 70,000 years ago most of the UK and most of Ireland were covered with hundreds of metres of snow, global warming is a fact

Computer Science Student

Ultimanemo wrote: »

This is the map of Europe 20,000 to 70,000 years ago most of the UK and most of Ireland were covered with hundreds of metres of snow, global warming is a fact

And if you go back further again, you'll see even more ice. So were humans causing global warming since the ice age or does ice just melt over large periods of time in the history of the planet?

Edgarfrndly

Computer Science Student wrote: »

And if you go back further again, you'll see even more ice. So were humans causing global warming since the ice age or does ice just melt over large periods of time in the history of the planet?

We've already covered this. The planet's climate changes naturally.

The current rate of change is not a part of that natural process.

It's like a car failing naturally after 100,000 miles and a car failing because the driver drives like a maniac.