Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Clip)
    Here's the problem - like just everything in Climate Science, your graphs don't tally with your argument.

    The point is that the science in this field is weak. I'm not saying there isn't AGW. What I'm saying is that the science sucks, but the hypothesis is being bulldozered through despite not being strongly supported. You don't do this with anything else - medicine, physics, astronomy. Yet with Climate Science, the shoddiest of work and most blatant misrepresentations are allowed to go unchecked, and often take the form of a facebook meme.

    Come on - let's be honest. Do you really know what your graphs mean? Do you really know what the substance of the papers they originated from was? Or do you just like them because they look pretty and you thought that some lines and colours would make everyone believe in impending global armageddon?
    Do you know what those graphs mean? Because I'd be more than happy to explain it to you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Please do tell me where I cut and pasted that from? Because that's the first I'd know about it...

    The IPCC don't keep downgrading their predictions. If anything, their predictions keep getting surpassed. NOAA had to change their scale for oceanic heat content recently because the rate of increase was so unprecedented.
    For such a huge post I thought it was a cut and paste.

    The IPCC have continually downgraded their predictons

    The most recent one however was even more confident that man made climate warming is happening, but it's impacta are a little mor realistic than the shock and awe predictons made in the past that have never materialised.

    When's the Maldives meant to be under water?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    For such a huge post I thought it was a cut and paste.

    The IPCC have continually downgraded their predictons

    The most recent one however was even more confident that man made climate warming is happening, but it's impacta are a little mor realistic than the shock and awe predictons made in the past that have never materialised.

    When's the Maldives meant to be under water?
    They've not continually downgraded their predictions... You've yet to give me any actual evidence of that. Have you actually even read the IPCC's condensed assessment report or are you just telling me rumours you've heard? Because it might do you some good if you take a trip to the IPCC's website where you are more than welcome to compare and contrast AR4 and AR5. Look for the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

    The IPCC never said the Maldives would be "underwater" now. The Maldives are in incredibly serious trouble though. Several Islands have already been rendered uninhabitable. Even if the land isn't physically underwater, rising sea levels increases the salt table and makes farmland unusable and many farms in the Maldives (and in countries where the situation is even more serious like Bangladesh) have been completely destroyed. It also makes you much more vulnerable to storm surges. The government is buying out land in India for their inevitable evacuation - a government wouldn't spend billions on land for its people if it wasn't absolutely necessary.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    They've not continually downgraded their predictions... You've yet to give me any actual evidence of that. Have you actually even read the IPCC's condensed assessment report or are you just telling me rumours you've heard? Because it might do you some good if you take a trip to the IPCC's website where you are more than welcome to compare and contrast AR4 and AR5. Look for the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

    The IPCC never said the Maldives would be "underwater" now. The Maldives are in incredibly serious trouble though. Several Islands have already been rendered uninhabitable. Even if the land isn't physically underwater, rising sea levels increases the salt table and makes farmland unusable and many farms in the Maldives (and in countries where the situation is even more serious like Bangladesh) have been completely destroyed. It also makes you much more vulnerable to storm surges. The government is buying out land in India for their inevitable evacuation - a government wouldn't spend billions on land for its people if it wasn't absolutely necessary.
    Male airport in the Maldives is going under some serious expansion.

    http://www.airport-technology.com/pr...international/

    i love history. Kirabati was the site of which famous event in WW2?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...te-change.html
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Male airport in the Maldives is going under some serious expansion.

    http://www.airport-technology.com/pr...international/
    Is that seriously your counterargument? Your argument against the fact that the Maldives are ranked the third most vulnerable country in the world to flooding and against the most comprehensive review in the world about climate change is the development of an airport by a completely corrupted government? This is absurd, you firstly start off by ignoring 95% of my points and suddenly focussing on the Maldives for some reason (a nice way of avoiding having to actually respond to most of my arguments and I've unfortunately taken the bait) and then you start talking about airports to counteract hard scientific evidence...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Is that seriously your counterargument? Your argument against the fact that the Maldives are ranked the third most vulnerable country in the world to flooding and against the most comprehensive review in the world about climate change is the development of an airport by a completely corrupted government? This is absurd, you firstly start off by ignoring 95% of my points and suddenly focussing on the Maldives for some reason (a nice way of avoiding having to actually respond to most of my arguments and I've unfortunately taken the bait) and then you start talking about airports to counteract hard scientific evidence...
    I wasn't aware a vunerable Island state was corrupt.

    Kiribati has had a big problem with overcrowding since independence from the UK in 79.

    But the climate change has resulted in them buying land for evacuation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...el-threat.html

    Or has it?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/internation...-land-purchase
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I wasn't aware a vunerable Island state was corrupt.

    Kiribati has had a big problem with overcrowding since independence from the UK in 79.

    But the climate change has resulted in them buying land for evacuation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...el-threat.html

    Or has it?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/internation...-land-purchase
    I'm just at a loss as to what this has to do with anything being discussed in this thread... What point are you actually trying to make? And the Maldives have had huge problems with corruptions, if you actually did 10 seconds of research you'd have been able to find that out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I'm just at a loss as to what this has to do with anything being discussed in this thread... What point are you actually trying to make? And the Maldives have had huge problems with corruptions, if you actually did 10 seconds of research you'd have been able to find that out.
    Government which is the driving force behind additimal funding in relationship to climate change is corrupt.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Government which is the driving force behind additimal funding in relationship to climate change is corrupt.
    The government is corrupt... that doesn't mean its claim that it needs more funding for climate change issues is wrong. It's possible that they're not going to use that funding responsibly, I don't know, I don't know a huge amount about the Maldives' political situation other than the basics, but they definitely need funding.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    The government is corrupt... that doesn't mean it's claim that it needs more funding for climate change issues is wrong. It's possible that they're not going to use that funding responsibly, I don't know, I don't know a huge amount about the Maldives' political situation other than the basics, but they definitely need funding.
    Just merely highlighting that peole will
    Misrepresent for personal gain.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Just merely highlighting that peole will
    Misrepresent for personal gain.
    Of course they will. For all I know the requests from the Maldives could be in bad faith with no regard to the interests of the citizens of the Maldives. It doesn't change the fact that the Maldives is actually in genuine danger.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    No matter how much you don't want it to be true, sticking your fingers in your ears and talking about statistical fluctuations doesn't make the science any less valid. If we do nothing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases then the consequences will probably be more terrible than I can imagine. It may already be too late to save some people and we may be beyond the point of no return but we can at least try to mitigate the coming disasters. The first step in that is recognising the overwhelming evidence in favour of anthropogenic climate change.

    Tl;dr - no, and ignoring the science because it disagrees with your political views is putting millions of lives at risk.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Exaggerating climate change's potential risks for ideological reasons is also pretty risky.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by plasmaman)
    Exaggerating climate change's potential risks for ideological reasons is also pretty risky.
    Even if I was exaggerating it's not a bad thing to overstate the problems it will cause. Simply looking at thermal expansion of water we can expect to see a sea level increase of several tens of meters in the coming few decades. Given that most of the population of Bangladesh (a country of more than 150 million people) live on very low lying land this is a serious problem.

    Even if I was exaggerating and governments went above and beyond to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce sustainable energy this would still be a good thing.

    Basically, this:
    Spoiler:
    Show


    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Actually I have read the climate papers these come from, the entire IPCC report (2007 and 2013), and been lectured on AGW by some of the UKs top climate scientists.
    Who?

    There are plenty of unknowns but the fact AGW is happening is undeniable.

    At the most basic level we increased CO2 levels more quickly and dramatically than at any point and it has been known since the 1960s that CO2 causes atmospheric warming. That is physics, it is not up for debate. For AGW not to happen physics would have to not work.
    The IPCC reports are frankly a joke and something that Sepp Blatter would be proud of. They are the result of a well-documented pack of lies and extensive subterfuge.

    Like I said, this does not mean that there is no AGW. I could be convinced. But not by this junk science, where the scientists behave like they are driving a getaway car.

    If AGW is real, if the science is real, if it's all beyond doubt - then is it not in the slightest bit suspicious that the key players in all this lie, cheat and break the law all the time?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Do you know what those graphs mean? Because I'd be more than happy to explain it to you.
    What I see are two graphs with a very close correlation historically.

    One spikes CO2 in the 20th century, with no corresponding spike in temperature. If the correlation is so strong (and the data is reliable), then the planet should be not hostile - but basically uninhabitable.

    Observationally, this is not the case. CO2 may be high, but temperatures are not.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Don't make me call Al Gore.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Clip)
    What I see are two graphs with a very close correlation historically.

    One spikes CO2 in the 20th century, with no corresponding spike in temperature. If the correlation is so strong (and the data is reliable), then the planet should be not hostile - but basically uninhabitable.

    Observationally, this is not the case. CO2 may be high, but temperatures are not.
    CO2 does not cause an immediate jump in temperature. That's one of the big problems - the changes in carbon dioxide today are essentially defining the course of the climate over the next millennia. Temperature rise has broadly accompanied the rise in CO2 but the atmosphere has yet to equilibrate with the ocean and the entire global system is switching from one modus operandi to another. These changes don't happen instantly. There are some geological changes that can cause incredibly rapid temperature changes like ocean currents reversing, but the temperature change due to CO2 alone is a relatively slow and gradual one.

    One of the big problems is that the climate is a nonlinear system. Whilst the temperature is rising in moderation at the moment (an extremely high rate in comparison to 'normal' climate change but it's nonetheless gradual, at least for humans), the risk is that we're going to see a sudden equilibrium flip sometime in the future when the old equilibrium switches into a new equilibrium. When this is going to happen is completely unpredictable but we have direct evidence of these flips happening in the past and they would be completely catastrophic for human civilization. For the last 10,000 years, the global climate has been unusually stable. What these CO2 changes are doing is essentially destabilising the unusually stable climate that allowed the neolithic revolution to happen in the first place, and allowed large civilizations to go. Throughout much of the last 2.5 million years, the climate has been very erratic with frequent large temperature swings happening in the northern hemisphere. If we are switching the climate back to this state or switching it to an entirely new state, that could make the problems we're seeing at the moment look totally irrelevant. None of this is taken into account with the models the IPCC uses because they really are virtually impossible to predict, but looking at what has happened in the past, there's no reason to expect them not to happen given what humans are doing at the moment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    What I see are two graphs with a very close correlation historically.

    One spikes CO2 in the 20th century, with no corresponding spike in temperature. If the correlation is so strong (and the data is reliable), then the planet should be not hostile - but basically uninhabitable.

    Observationally, this is not the case. CO2 may be high, but temperatures are not.

    :facepalm2:

    Yes, everything that happens is instant. I can't believe we're having to explain this, especially after you patronised me over those graphs earlier. You don't understand them and you accuse me of that? I'm still trying to decide if you're actually a lost cause or not.

    You pointed out the 800,000 year historical correlation between Co2 and temperature. Just to clarify, that's about 6 times longer than humans have existed. Good, that's part of it.

    In actuality, Co2 trails temperature by ~800 years. As you also said (or somone else said) warming of the Earth is caused for a part by several changes in Earth orbital cycles, one of which works on a 20,000 year period and are responsible for interglacial periods in Earth's history. This is not the whole story though.

    Co2 is offen likened to an amplifier and we know that Co2 and temperature are linked. Where ever one goes, the other follows. This is why the massive spike in Co2 is so alarming because temperature is going to follow it at some point, it's just a matter of when.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Who?



    The IPCC reports are frankly a joke and something that Sepp Blatter would be proud of. They are the result of a well-documented pack of lies and extensive subterfuge.

    Like I said, this does not mean that there is no AGW. I could be convinced. But not by this junk science, where the scientists behave like they are driving a getaway car.

    If AGW is real, if the science is real, if it's all beyond doubt - then is it not in the slightest bit suspicious that the key players in all this lie, cheat and break the law all the time?
    Nick Ruddiman, Peters and professor blackstock at UCL, along with other climate scientists at Brunel, Royal Holloway and the natural history museum.


    How exactly is the IPCC jusnk science when it is the collation of work by thousands of the best scientists across the world?

    Not only that but thanks to bizarre conspiracy enthusiasts like you they have had to get non scientist sceptics on board to review it, whose minds are warped and twisted by their free market capitalism at all costs dogma and who have never so much as picked up a scientific paper and read it before in their lives. Yet despite these people being involved the conclusion is still clear.

    What makes you think you know so much better than thousands of top scientists?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Native To Europe)
    There is no conclusive evidence for or against global warming. No matter how objectively you read in to it.

    It disgusts me that people voice their opinion on the subject based on their political alliance; it is a scientific debate not a political one.

    Anyone who claims to know conclusively either way is a liar.
    Actually the scientific consensus is that global warming is real and to some extent, man-made.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.