Climate Change, the Surge...

Scroll to see replies

Is this genuinely the case? I haven't researched it

So....AJ126y
Jake tsr
Shallowvale
Username
and anyone else on the believer side.
Can you post video of a debate on the same stage between believers and deniers?
(Hate these terms but what can you do)
Are the deniers posting here right that believers won't debate?

So what do I make of no reply?
I assume it means deniers are correct that believers won't openly debate?

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 42

SHallowvale

It's already known that CO2 is not the only thing that can have an influence on the temperature of the Earth, I'm not sure why you feel that this is surprising? This has been known for some time.

The increase in land surface temperature since 1969 was not reversed between 1995 and 2014/15.

Reply 43

SHallowvale

Original post by Just my opinion

Is this genuinely the case? I haven't researched it

Not really, no. This thread is an excellent example.

Reply 44

SHallowvale

Except we can. This subject has been studied for at least 50 years and we have a good understanding of what raises the temperature of the Earth.

How old are you and what formal experience/training do you have on this subject?

Reply 45

SHallowvale

Can you... link this graph instead of just making a vague reference to it? The link you gave is from a Google image search and not a link to what the IPCC have said themselves. Speaking of, the images you've linked to show graphs on radiative forcing. What has this got to do with what we currently 'understand' about the factors which contribute to warming?

Once again, how old are you and what formal training have you received on this?

Reply 46

SHallowvale

If you want to claim that the IPCC have said something then you should expect to be asked to provide a first hand source to support that claim. An image search on Google isn't supportive of what you're claiming. If you've found this graph being used in one of the IPCC's own publications then provide a link to this publication.

What is the "level of scientific understanding" with reference to? Them saying they have a "low" scientific understanding of, say, aerosol's is very vague. How do they define "high", "medium" and "low"?

This is why you should provide the original source of this data and not an image pulled out from Google.

I'm curious about your age and your expertise because you're making a lot of awful mistakes in your reasoning/arguments. So... how old are you and what formal training do you have on this subject?

Reply 47

SHallowvale

You didn't. This was the link you gave me. All you did was Google "IPCC LOSU" and copy/paste a link to the image page.

I could make an assumption as to what a 'low level of scientific understanding' means, but until this is defined in the appropriate context, and by the IPCC themselves, I do not know what this means. It is a vague term and could refer to different things.

Reply 48

username4406682

Experience has taught me not to get involved in climate debates purely because I get flamed by climate sceptics (for believing that hymens are the main cause of climate change) and Extinction Rebellion types (for believing that we are not under immediate threat of extinction and enjoying meat/flying/owning more than one outfit made from two coal sacks stitched together).
However, I have a feeling that these papers are not published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal like the New Scientist or Nature but on a website with a lack of scientific credidentials. Feel free to show me some evidence to the contrary.

Reply 49

username4406682

Original post by Plagioclase

FYI New Scientist isn't a journal. It's a magazine that reports on science.

Really? I remember reading a copy once and seeing half of it devoted to papers.

Reply 50

joey11223

Not to take either side in this but I do wonder to what extent research is either bias from the outset or has the "file drawer problem", the idea that if a research project ends up with a discovery/results which are not as expected and not what the author hoped to find, they simply don't publish it. The latter is quite an issue even in biological sciences, I imagine it's even worse with climate science. Then you have the other avenue where you'll get articles published in lauded scientific journals that use a title and abstract which is actually starkly different than what the entire paper would suggest. Again you see it in biological sciences, "Is X a new Z cancer risk?" "Y as a new treatment for Z cancer" as the title, abstract seems to imply they have strong data of their titles claim. You read the whole article and examine the data and it's statistically insignificant and they likely admit this in part of the article, but then go on to stretch conclusions from it which just aren't there.

I do find it troubling these days that some people can be so close minded. Even if you disagree strongly with the opposite opinion, examine their raw data and see where they draw their conclusions from, before you discard everything out of hand. Often the truth is....somewhere in the middle. Researchers want/need grant money, they are not purely doing it for the quest of knowledge alone, you have to publish what will bring in interest and thus ££ for your future ideas..

Reply 51

Napp

Original post by Plagioclase

They report on papers obviously, but it isn't original research. It's not peer reviewed.

In fairness other journals don't meet this requirement, Foreign Affairs for example.

Reply 52

username4406682

Original post by Plagioclase

They report on papers obviously, but it isn't original research. It's not peer reviewed.

Reply 53

SHallowvale

If you had read these reports yourself then you should easily be able to provide links to the originals. You haven't read them, evidently, which is why you are now trying to pawn that responsibility onto me.

I am not the person who is making these claims: you are. It is your job to provide the evidence and the correct sources of this information, not me. A search on Google Images isn't a source.

Let me put it this way; do you think that human activity (with regards to emissions such as CO2, aerosols, etc) are having a net warming effect on the planet? Yes/No

Reply 54

anarchism101

Original post by joey11223

On the contrary, results which are not as expected are particularly interesting!

Reply 55

anarchism101

No, it isn't. Despite the inevitable random variation, that graph is clearly showing a slight climb over the three decades.

And if you use a longer time period, let's say a century, the warming is far clearer.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 56

SHallowvale

Not at all. I have asked you to provide the evidence and you, still, haven't done so. You're blaming me for not finding the evidence to support your claims and also calling me lazy and stupid for simply pointing this out. This is why I asked about your age, since you argue like a child.

So, I'll ask again:

1. Provide a direct link to the chart that the IPCC have published themselves, on their own site.

2. Give the definition of "Level of Scientific Understanding", from the IPCC themselves.

What you may find, and I checked this myself, is that "Level of Scientific Understanding" refers to the confidence intervals of their estimates. A "low" level refers to a wider interval than a "high" level. Your earlier claim that we have a poor understanding of what affects the climate is false; we have a good understanding, just that some of our estimates are more precise than others (and are, generally, becoming increasingly precise).

Even when giving ourselves the most generous values in these intervals, human activity is still having a warming affect on the planet. The IPCC have said before that it is highly likely that human activity has been behind the warming we've seen over the last 5-6 decades, hence why there is a drive to lower emissions.

Reply 57

Napp

Original post by Plagioclase

I don't know what that is, but the Wikipedia article describes it as a magazine, not a journal. I don't know if there are different standards in the humanities but in science, any journal remotely worth taking seriously is peer-reviewed.

It crosses the line between both it is both a magazine in some respects but is classified as a journal. However, it stands as being one of the most respected publications in the IR field coming from the CFR think tank.

Reply 58

SHallowvale

A link to their home page isn't a source for the figure you want to us. That would be like me citing a table from a research paper and referencing it using the home page of the journal it was published under; it's not a source. Provide me with the original article/paper, published by the IPCC themselves, that uses this figure and also how they define low, medium and high LOSUs.

The images you linked to do not include the effect of clouds on them, unless you're confusing ozone for clouds? LOSU does reference the likelihood intervals, which represent how high or low each estimate could be under 90% confidence.

In their 5th assessment report, the IPCC conclude that human activity cause more than half of the observed warming since the 50s. That conclusion comes with a 95%-100% confidence. So 'dominant' here refers to at least 50%, not 25% (where do you get this value from?).

Reply 59

SHallowvale

Original post by Plagioclase

I'd give up if I were you. OP is either scientifically illiterate or they're intentionally trying to be annoying (most likely both). Either way, you're not going to get anywhere. There's no more point in engaging with climate change deniers as there is engaging with flat earthers, vaccine alarmists or any other destructive pseudoscience cult.