Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

  • 08-08-2011 5:48pm
    #1
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    The issue of climate change and how much humans are contributing is a subject that comes up frequently in this forum. The debate can take over other threads and so we are creating this megathread for all debate on the science of climate change. Discussion of the scientific consensus on climate change outside of this thread is not permitted and all other threads started for this purpose will be locked.

    The current scientific consensus (as per the IPCC):
    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.

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

    While the details of climate change science beyond this consensus are debatable, please keep this debate within this megathread or make use of the Environmental Science forum.
    Tagged:


«134567…11

Comments

  • #2
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Well thats the first point that always stuck out at me that seems to have since been rectified: When this issue came into the mainstream it was "Global Warming", and there were alarmists out there telling us about our Waterworld future and all this hyperbole. The science is still being substantiated and now it's called "Global Climate Change".

    But of course! Reminds me of Sean Hannity over on FOX. That complete tardmuppet:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvXX7PCkQ0


    Of course in my observation we've been having record-high summers and record-low winters. See Snowmageddon; and this infograph showing the number of heat records shattered across the United States in July: http://gizmodo.com/5828421/july-broke-almost-9000-heat-records/gallery/1?preview=0


  • #3
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    :D great link
    It does raise the issue of terminology, that's often mistaking posted in S&EI forum


  • #4
    fizzycyst
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭fizzycyst


    Very interesting video, a bit scary to be honest. But Rifkin has some good solutions, if only us humans could get our act together and see the big picture.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9wM-p8wTq4


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574


    It's not that big a story in its own right. The significant part is that the paper that delighted climate change sceptics by declaring that the IPCC's projections of temperature rise were too high has now been pretty much completely discredited.


  • #6
    Cork boy 55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    Good news Ireland is fourth lowest risk country in World from climate change according to this anyway?

    A new global ranking, calculating the vulnerability of 170 countries to the impacts of climate change over the next 30 years, identifies some of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, including India, as facing the greatest risks to their populations, ecosystems and business environments.
    The new Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI), released by global risks advisory firm Maplecroft, enables organisations to identify areas of risk within their operations, supply chains and investments. It evaluates 42 social, economic and environmental factors to assess national vulnerabilities across three core areas. These include: exposure to climate-related natural disasters and sea-level rise; human sensitivity, in terms of population patterns, development, natural resources, agricultural dependency and conflicts; thirdly, the index assesses future vulnerability by considering the adaptive capacity of a country’s government and infrastructure to combat climate change.
    The index rates 16 countries as ‘extreme risk,’ including nations that represent new Asian economic power and possess significant forecasted growth. Bangladesh (1), India (2), Philippines (6), Vietnam (13) and Pakistan (16) all feature in the highest risk category and are of particular importance as they are major contributors to the ongoing global economic recovery and are vital to the future expansion of Western businesses in particular.
    “These countries are attracting high levels of foreign investment from many multinational organisations,” said Principal Environmental Analyst at Maplecroft, Dr Matthew Bunce. “However, over the next 30 years their vulnerability to climate change will rise due to increases in air temperature, precipitation and humidity. This means organisations with operations or assets in these countries will become more exposed to associated risks, such as climate-related natural disasters, resource security and conflict. Understanding climate vulnerability will help companies make their investments more resilient to unexpected change.”
    Other countries featuring in the ‘extreme risk’ category include: Madagascar (3), Nepal (4), Mozambique (5), Haiti (7), Afghanistan (8), Zimbabwe (9), Myanmar (10), Ethiopia (11), Cambodia (12), Thailand (14) and Malawi (15). According to Maplecroft, the countries with the most risk are characterised by high levels of poverty, dense populations, exposure to climate-related events; and their reliance on flood and drought prone agricultural land. Africa features strongly in this group, with the continent home to 12 out of the 25 countries most at risk.
    snip---
    There are 11 countries considered ‘low risk’ in the index, with Norway (170), Finland (169), Iceland (168), Ireland (167), Sweden (166) and Denmark (165) performing the best. However, Russia (117), USA (129), Germany (131), France (133) and the UK (138) are all rated as ‘medium risk’ countries, whilst China (49), Brazil (81) and Japan (86) feature in the ‘high risk’ category.


    ccvi_map.jpg
    http://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Here we go again. I realise there is a thread for Climate Change discussion so if the mods wanna move this they can but something tells me another full blown thread is on the line with these delicious quote mines.
    /// The IPCC Process ///
    <1939> Thorne/MetO:
    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
    troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
    wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
    uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
    further if necessary [...]
    <3066> Thorne:
    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
    which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
    <1611> Carter:
    It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
    talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
    a select core group.
    <2884> Wigley:
    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
    dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
    <4755> Overpeck:
    The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
    included and what is left out.
    <3456> Overpeck:
    I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
    “Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
    an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

    Was that a big enough quote wall?


  • #8
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Here we go again.
    I just saw this on the BBC website - doesn't seem to be much to it, but I'm sure we'll see some creative interpretations all the same.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    I realise there is a thread for Climate Change discussion so if the mods wanna move this they can but something tells me another full blown thread is on the line with these delicious quote mines.
    We had a thread on the original "Climategate", but it's probably ran it's course by now. We'll leave this discussion here for the time being.


  • #9
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Here we go again. I realise there is a thread for Climate Change discussion so if the mods wanna move this they can but something tells me another full blown thread is on the line with these delicious quote mines.



    Was that a big enough quote wall?

    It's interesting that no one has bothered to get into this, in the way that previously it would have generated a lot of debate. I suppose the evidence produced is so clear, that many here don't need further discussion.


  • #10
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    easychair wrote: »
    I suppose the evidence produced is so clear...
    Evidence of what exactly?


  • #11
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Evidence of what exactly?

    Thats up to each of us to decide for ourselves, I assume.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    easychair wrote: »
    Thats up to each of us to decide for ourselves, I assume.

    [mod]Enough of this guff. Either debate in plain English without descending into relativism or don't post please.[/mod]


  • #13
    analyst2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31 ✭analyst2


    It has always seemed to me that the subject of climate change/global warming should be taken seriously, and if in doubt we should err on the side of caution. It has become increasing obvious, however, that some or many scientists involved and leading the case for climate change/global warming are not always as scrupulous, or as honest, as they should be, and in some cases have been downright dishonest to skew the facts and evidence to make their case seem more than it was.

    The first concerns were raised with the exposure of the “hockey stick” graph, a graph on which many scientists based their predictions, and which was, essentially, shown to be worthless and created out of a small amount of virtually meaningless data. Then the Climategate emails were exposed, which showed how data was manipulated, and how scientists, men who were supposed to be impartial and interested in finding the truth, stopped at nothing to discredit anyone who challenged what they called, in the emails, “the Cause”. Scientists look at evidence, and when scientists manipulate evidence and discredit those who have different evidence, alarm bells start to ring.

    Perhaps the most worrying of all was that the IPCC, a body entrusted by the world to find the truth, was exposed as a body who manipulated data and whose reports had not been based on science, but often on scare stories dreamed up by environmental activists.

    A further example of this was the scandal that emerged last week, with the release on the internet of various documents from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago think-tank long vilified by the scientists who were making claims based on bogus data, for organising conferences attended by hundreds of distinguished scientists from across the world who dared to be sceptical of the orthodoxy.

    Global temperatures have failed to rise as the computer models, upon which the whole scientific claims were based, said they would. The whole climate change/global warming argument is looking more and more shaky, and even if they are eventually proved right, those scientists who have manipulated data and used bogus evidence should be ashamed of themselves for bringing the whole subject into near ridicule.

    My hope is that we can learn the lesson to “believe” less and know more.


  • #14
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    analyst2 wrote: »
    ...those scientists who have manipulated data and used bogus evidence should be ashamed of themselves...
    Name one such scientist.


  • #15
    analyst2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31 ✭analyst2


    Dr John Christysaid: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”


  • #16
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    analyst2 wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Name one such scientist.
    Dr John Christysaid: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

    John Christy disagrees with the AGW hypothesis. Are you saying he manipulated data and is using evidence by suggesting that the majority of the scientists involved with the IPCC don't agree with AGW hypothesis?


  • #17
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    analyst2 wrote: »
    Dr John Christysaid: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring...
    Which scientists? Lets have some names. We'll overlook for the moment the fact that Christy himself does not dispute that the planet is warming.


  • #18
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Which scientists? Lets have some names. We'll overlook for the moment the fact that Christy himself does not dispute that the planet is warming.
    How bout instead of this interrogative, threatening style of questioning we just see a polite rebuttal, quoting the findings of multiple investigations into the Climategate scandal?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Independent_Climate_Change_Email_Review


  • #19
    BettyM
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 62 ✭✭BettyM


    Half of the USA now believe that the threat of Global Warming has been exaggerated, and fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming. In the UK only 31% now believe Climate change is definitely a reality.

    Tim Wirth, a former Colorado senator said the scientists who worked on the IPCC report were woefully outmanoeuvred in PR by business groups which have the funds to employ legions of lobbyists and communications experts. "It's not a fair fight," he said. "The IPCC is just a tiny secretariat next to this giant denier machine."

    "...in the absence of green leadership from the Prime Minister, the centre of gravity of the Conservative Party has been sliding back to climate-change scepticism..."

    Why is the world becoming more skeptical about the issue?


  • #20
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You would have to tell us, I suppose.

    Do you have a link for your article? You are violating copyright law by plagiarizing your source.


  • #21
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    With kudos to Mike65,

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
    The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
    The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.
    The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.
    Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."
    The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.
    The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
    The impact on predictions for future sea level rise is yet to be fully studied but Bamber said: "The projections for sea level rise by 2100 will not change by much, say 5cm or so, so we are talking about a very small modification." Existing estimates range from 30cm to 1m.
    This bit I found very interesting:
    The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world's 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.
    The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: "There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up."
    The new study used a pair of satellites, called Grace, which measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational pull. When ice is lost, the gravitational pull weakens and is detected by the orbiting spacecraft. "They fly at 500km, so they see everything," said Wahr, including the hard-to-reach, high-altitude glaciers.
    "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."
    While I definitely feel Global Warming is certainly a live issue it's an interesting point, that a lot of the data and estimates we've heard over the years are at least based in part, on pretty wideband extrapolations. According to the article this was done by using data from less than 1% of all glaciers to produce estimates from those glaciers, and as mentioned these glaciers sampled were not in proportion to the conditions found on the majority of earth's glaciers. from that I guess is where scientists say in 100 years we'll be living in Waterworld, or Florida won't exist, etc. /exaggeration

    Hardly damning for the science, but it means the figures et all are thrown a bit off. As the article maintains, the data still trends in the direction of Global Warming, though the rate of change is a little less certain. Also bear in mind this study is focused on water levels and ice reserves, not global mean temperature or atmospheric content.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    elmex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭elmex


    I suppose to many ordinary people, the situation is they no longer seem to buy it. Perhaps it's because the Chicago Carbon Exchange closed down due to lack of interest, maybe it was the 'climategate' emails which many believe showed that the scientists involved manipulated data, and supressed dissent. Either way ordinary people's confidence that they were being told the truth by these same people, was shaken.

    The IPCC was once regarded as the world authority on climate change, but the discovery that its reports could not be relied on and contained predictions based not on science but seemingly on claims simply dreamed up by environmental activists shook many ordinary peoples faith in the IPCC to the extent than many no longer believe its predictions.

    Perhaps these events have something to do with many ordinary people feeling mislead by these tactics and why so many simply disbelieve the whole thing as a result.


  • #23
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    elmex wrote: »
    The IPCC was once regarded as the world authority on climate change, but the discovery that its reports could not be relied on...
    You're dismissing the entire series of reports as unreliable on the basis of one error?


  • #24
    elmex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭elmex


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You're dismissing the entire series of reports as unreliable on the basis of one error?

    I had hoped I had not dismissed anything.

    My post was about confidence in the organisations, such as the IPCC, being eroded in the eyes of many, and not about dismissing reports.

    It may not be fair, but the drip, drip, drip of claims which were exaggerated, or which were simply false, or which were based on dubious evidence, seems to have eroded confidencr or interest in the issue amongst the public.

    While I have little doubts that we can argue the merits of "himalayagate" or "africagate", claims made about the Netherlands being below sea level, the hockey stick graph and so on, thats not the point of my post, which was that many have lost confidence in the issue to the extent they no longer believe what the IPCC says.


  • #25
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    elmex wrote: »
    I had hoped I had not dismissed anything.
    You said the IPCC reports could not be relied upon - that's a dismissal.
    elmex wrote: »
    It may not be fair, but the drip, drip, drip of claims which were exaggerated, or which were simply false, or which were based on dubious evidence, seems to have eroded confidencr or interest in the issue amongst the public.
    Following the discovery of the error relating to Himalayan glaciers, elements of the media, such as the Sunday Times' Jonathan Leake, began scouring the IPCC reports in search of further errors. While Leake and his pears have claimed other inaccuracies exist, all such claims were found to be (largely) baseless.
    elmex wrote: »
    ...many have lost confidence in the issue to the extent they no longer believe what the IPCC says.
    I doubt that is the case. I would argue that those who have no confidence in what the IPCC says never had any confidence in what the IPCC ever said, as they do not wish to accept the evidence presented.


  • #26
    elmex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭elmex


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You said the IPCC reports could not be relied upon - that's a dismissal.
    Following the discovery of the error relating to Himalayan glaciers, elements of the media, such as the Sunday Times' Jonathan Leake, began scouring the IPCC reports in search of further errors. While Leake and his pears have claimed other inaccuracies exist, all such claims were found to be (largely) baseless.
    I doubt that is the case. I would argue that those who have no confidence in what the IPCC says never had any confidence in what the IPCC ever said, as they do not wish to accept the evidence presented.

    What I said was that the numbers of those who no longer believe it are increasing. Your doubts seem to contradict the findings of a gallup poll last year, which concluded “…Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question…”

    It would be good to hear the argument you say you would argue, given the evidence from Gallup that, since 1997, 17% more Americans believe that the threat is generally exaggerated.


  • #27
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    elmex wrote: »
    ...17% more Americans believe that the threat is generally exaggerated.
    Unless those Americans are referring specifically to exaggerations from the IPCC, which I don't think they are (based on the use of the term "generally"), then it doesn't really support your previous point.

    But anyway, why does it matter? Should public confidence in science be taken as some sort of indicator of legitimacy, regardless of how informed that public may or may not be?


  • #28
    elmex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭elmex


    elmex wrote: »
    …many have lost confidence in the issue to the extent they no longer believe what the IPCC says.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I doubt that is the case.

    In light of the Gallup poll, do you still doubt that is the case?


  • #29
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    elmex wrote: »
    In light of the Gallup poll, do you still doubt that is the case?
    Eh, yes - I just explained why: the poll doesn't support your claim that many people "no longer believe what the IPCC says".

    And I'm also wondering why it matters? You're implying that if people don't believe what the IPCC says, that undermines their reports? Why?


  • #30
    BettyM
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 62 ✭✭BettyM


    elmex wrote: »
    I suppose to many ordinary people, the situation is they no longer seem to buy it.

    I read an article in the Guardian which said the same is true for the UK.

    "The proportion of adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality dropped by 30% over the last year, from 44% to 31%, in the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.

    Overall around nine out of 10 people questioned still appear to accept some degree of global warming."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/british-public-belief-climate-poll


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    elmex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭elmex


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, yes - I just explained why: the poll doesn't support your claim that many people "no longer believe what the IPCC says".

    What interests me about the polling is what it it does show, which is a significant shift in opinion, and that shift says that "48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated"

    I don't imagine that those people believe the IPCC but disbelieve everyone else, as the poll doesn't say, but if you want to argue that case then I'll certainly try to facilitate you.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    And I'm also wondering why it matters?

    As we have seen in Queensland in the last week, the Labour government was annhilated in the polls, attributed largely to its commitment to a carbon tax.

    Why it matters is because individuals have votes. And if a large number of individuals, as the polls show, believe that the threat from global warming is exaggerated, then they are likely to do as the voters in Queensland has just done, and kick any political party who wants to impose taxes on them in the name of climate change.

    I think I am right to say that Australia is the first country in the world where unpopular environmental policies have become a political game-changer, and that is why it matters.


  • #32
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    elmex wrote: »
    What interests me about the polling is what it it does show, which is a significant shift in opinion, and that shift says that "48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated"
    Exaggerated by who?


  • #33
    elmex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭elmex


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Exaggerated by who?

    I don't think that question was asked by the pollsters, and I guess you might try mailing them if you want to know the answer to your question.

    For me its the fact that so many people now seem to think the case is exaggerated which is the salient point, and how that appears now to be beginning to be translated into using the ballot box to punish politicians who use the issue to raise taxes.

    Certainly in Ireland the Green party was more than decimated in the last general election, and in hindsight I wonder did that factor play a part, or whether that has anything to do with the perception in the Irish electorate that the Green Party was seen by some (growing) part of the electorate to be a party not in touch with this apparently growing phenomenon. Certainly in Queensland it seems to have been the major contributing factor to the election results there.

    I suppose a partial answer to your question is that the issue is seen to be exaggerated by politicians, but I don't think that's the answer you wanted.


  • #34
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    elmex wrote: »
    What I said was that the numbers of those who no longer believe it are increasing. Your doubts seem to contradict the findings of a gallup poll last year, which concluded “…Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question…”

    It would be good to hear the argument you say you would argue, given the evidence from Gallup that, since 1997, 17% more Americans believe that the threat is generally exaggerated.
    So? 4 in 10 Americans also believe in Creationism, puritanically. We're talking about a question of science here, not whether or not Americans want to allow Gays to marry or Pot to be legalized: those are pretty much down to your personal opinions. Your belief in matters of science is really more of a question of how much attention you're paying. I have few doubts that most of the people who believe climate change is a hoax also believe in Creationism.


  • #35
    BettyM
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 62 ✭✭BettyM


    What about the English survey I mentioned, or the situation in Queensland in Australia?

    Your own doubts are interesting, but not an actual argument either way. When those same americans vote against a government who tries to impose taxes on them in the name of climate change, or green taxes, it will be of little consolation to that ousted government to believe that those same americans do, or don't, also believe in creationism.

    This phenomenon is not just happening in the USA, based on evidence, and not just based on personal beliefs.


  • #36
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Some of you may be familiar with a Prof. Richard Muller - he's definitely been mentioned on this forum in the past. I was familiar with him as a prominent figure who supported the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published criticisms of Michael Mann's work.

    Well, it would appear Prof. Muller has done an about turn:
    A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.

    In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."

    Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers.

    Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

    Of course, the important point here is not that a "sceptic" has had a change of heart, but rather that the anthropogenic global warming theory has once again been demonstrated to be valid. This is perhaps even more significant in this case because the aim of the study (or the aim of many of its backers, at least) was to achieve precisely the opposite - to discredit the idea that global warming has been caused by humans.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Tsarina
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Tsarina


    A former chair of the IPCC - Professor Watson FRS - has stated that the notion of keeping to the UN-Kyoto Proposed 2C limit is unfeasible. This follows the apparently supportive US spokensman Stern who, a few weeks' ago, suggested that the proposed 2C limit was an obstacle to negotiations.

    When someone like Professor Watson says publically that warming will be 3 or even up to 5C, the climate crisis has clearly passed a significant point.

    ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194


  • #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6514270139930450081#
    1:46:59
    An early documentary about global warming. It theorizes and tells facts about the effects global weather has had on our history. It then theorizes a lot more about its effects on our future and especially the way in which we will overcome it's bad effects. If you don't mind some, not proofed, theorizing from a reasonably intelligent guy, and are interested in our climate, this is probably a must see. I like it.

    A fascinating "lookback" from the future, but from a current perspective it's interesting to note how much slower things happened than were forecast but also just how much appears to be on track!


  • #39
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    A couple of stories I came across in a recent issue of New Scientist.

    First of all, a recent report published by a Spanish organisation (DARA) states that climate change is already harming the global economy:
    According to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor – a report by Spanish non-profit organisation DARA – in 2010 climate change shaved 1.6 per cent off global gross domestic product. The figure was calculated by adding the harmful effects of climate change to the problems of the carbon-based economy, such as air pollution.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22300-climate-change-already-harming-the-global-economy.html

    I've not yet read the report in question, but I am sceptical that such conclusions can be made.

    In the same issue, more evidence that we may be in a "grand" solar minima:
    WAITING for solar fireworks to reach a grand finale next year? Um, sorry, looks like you already missed them. Structures in the sun's corona indicate that the peak in our star's latest cycle of activity has been and gone, at least in its northern hemisphere.

    ...

    This bizarre asymmetry strengthens a theory that has been bubbling among sun watchers for the past few years: our star is headed for hibernation. Having the sun's outbursts turned off for a while would provide a better baseline for studying how they influence Earth's climate.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528843.700-solar-maximum-oh-you-just-missed-it.html

    If the sun is indeed going to sleep for a time, I'm not sure whether this can be viewed as positive or negative. On the plus side, it should provide some breathing space for us to deal with increasing global temperatures. The downside, however, is that it may foster complacency.


  • #40
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    As the now seemingly annual chaos caused by snowfalls in the south of England is upon us, I turn to my scrap book where I find a headline from 2000's Independent, headlining "“Snowfall now just a thing of the past”, quoting David Viner, of East Anglia’s celebrated Climatic Research Unit, predicting that falls of snow would, within a few years, become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    Having followed the debate now for many years, and having read many books, papers and followed many blogs and the like, it's really only possible to come to two conclusions which are;

    (i) No one can accurately predict what the temperature will be in 1 month's time, let alone in 100 years time and

    (ii) All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.


  • #41
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    Having followed the debate now for many years, and having read many books, papers and followed many blogs and the like, it's really only possible to come to two conclusions which are;

    (i) No one can accurately predict what the temperature will be in 1 month's time, let alone in 100 years time and

    Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures. It is an explanation of temperature changes we are already experiencing. Therefore, the trend is what's important. Also, I don't think anyone is claiming to predict exact temperatures in 100 years.
    (ii) All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.
    By whom?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    Macha wrote: »
    Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures. It is an explanation of temperature changes we are already experiencing. Therefore, the trend is what's important. Also, I don't think anyone is claiming to predict exact temperatures in 100 years.


    Is your argument that the computer modelling so widely discussed a few years ago did not predict a rise in temperatures? The computer models were not, in fact, set up to explain temperature changes we were already experiencing, but to predict changes in the future. Were you really not aware of that?

    I wasn't the person who predicted that snow would be a thing of the past, that was said by someone who was a leading proponent of the computer models, and I came across his prediction in my scrap book and repeated it here for everyone to make up their own mind on the accuracy of that individual prediction.


  • #43
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.
    Complete nonsense. The projections detailed in the IPCC's first report back in 1990 have been shown so far to have been largely accurate:

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1763


  • #44
    paddy147
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,858 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I still try to keep an open mind on what percentage of the recent warming is manmade, I don't know what that percentage is but it is almost certainly between 20 & 80%, there is absolutely no way that all the changes man has made to the planet & all the pollution have no effects and at the same time there's no way that it could all be down to man!

    We still have the solar sunspot count well below average for the last century which is expected to be followed by a "Maunder minimum" type effect to really muddy the waters, that could really screw up the climate over the next couple of decades.


  • #46
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    paddy147 wrote: »
    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings...
    You thought wrong.


  • #47
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Macha wrote: »
    Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures.

    I am aware of the difference between Weather as being observed conditions and climate being the trend.

    I'm in Queensland at the moment, and in the past 2 years. we've had 1 in 100 year rain, wind and temperature conditions and records have been broken all the way up & down the coast.
    It seems that the "normal" tropical storms are bringing more moisture, more energy and are traveling further than has ever been previously recorded.
    Statistically this may be an anomaly, but a worst case scenario would be for this pattern to repeat.
    The Bureau of Meteorology here in Oz have had to re-design their temperature charts to cater for higher average temperatures. Hydrographers have had to revise all of their flood risk analyses and flood flag maps, and it seems as though they may have to revise their frequency intervals for some flood events in consideration of the recent events.
    I know that there was one recorded precedent for consecutive or 2 out of 3 years being record flood years back in the 1890's which may pan out in the years to come.

    They had Al Gore on the box this morning speaking about how the energy in these systems and the frequency of the occurrence may indicate a climatic shift......but then he started talking about the book of revelations and I switched it off due to credibility.

    It's an interesting time for sure.
    I think food & water supply pressures are going to be the most pressing issues regardless of whether the climate is changing or we are just going through an intense period of storm activity.


  • #48
    paddy147
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,858 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You thought wrong.


    Well it made the headlines on BBC World News,ITV News and also Sky News.;)

    You should look into that,before telling me that Im wrong.



    Oh and maybe quote my entire post too aswell please.
    paddy147 wrote: »
    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.





    Thanks.


  • #49
    SiegfriedsMum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    paddy147 wrote: »
    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.

    There is a difference between "findings" and "predictions".

    The former are observable and recordable facts, and are not in dispute.

    You are right that some tried to muddle their findings to make the theory fit (such as the notorious and widely discredited hockey stick graph), and others in what became known as "climategate" conspired together concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. Then we had the IPCC making claims it said were based on scientific evidence which turned out to be lies when all they had, in one case, was a pamphlet produced by an activist with no scientific evidence of any kind.

    The latter, predictions, were where some scientists decided to try to predict the future and, for example in the example I gave of David Viner above, they simply got it wrong.

    We all have to make up our own minds as to whether these sorts of people are trustworthy, use proper scientific methods, and whether their other predictions are likely to be true.


  • #50
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    paddy147 wrote: »
    Well it made the headlines on BBC World News,ITV News and also Sky News.
    Maybe you could provide a link to at least one article in which it demonstrates that all the scientists "made up their findings"?


  • #51
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    You are right that some tried to muddle their findings to make the theory fit (such as the notorious and widely discredited hockey stick graph)...
    This is the same “hockey stick” graph that has been reproduced by several independent studies? That hardly counts as “widely discredited”.
    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    ...and others in what became known as "climategate" conspired together concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
    So you’re just ignoring the fact that eight separate inquiries into the “climategate” affair found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct?
    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    Then we had the IPCC making claims it said were based on scientific evidence which turned out to be lies...
    I think you’ll find it was one single claim, which was quickly corrected. There then followed a concerted media campaign to find further errors in the report, which turned up nothing.

    So you’re saying the entire report should be binned because it contained one error?
    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    The latter, predictions, were where some scientists decided to try to predict the future and, for example in the example I gave of David Viner above, they simply got it wrong.
    Ignoring for a moment that what you’re referring to is an off-the-cuff comment in a newspaper article, maybe you could highlight what exactly is so wildly inaccurate in said article:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
    SiegfriedsMum wrote: »
    We all have to make up our own minds as to whether these sorts of people are trustworthy, use proper scientific methods, and whether their other predictions are likely to be true.
    So in other words, you’ve made up your mind that climate science is nonsense and nothing is going to convince you otherwise?

    Answer me this: why would scientists falsify data to give the impression that the planet is slowly warming?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement