Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Global Warming: Humankind’s Unwillingness to Save Itself Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The other planets are however seeing warming. In fact the polar caps on mars are also melting.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-cc5c23c24651

    the simple fact is that climate continually changes. We have difficulty predicting even farther out accurately and there's so many variables.

    the actual degree of warming is a lot lower than has been predicted.
    the degree of impact from the activity of the sun isn't fully understood.
    the earths magnetic poles are moving.
    we don't fully understand the impact of deep sea currents.
    people are making a lot of money out of carbon trading and renewable energy

    I believe in sustainability and reduction in waste. I don't however believe however in holding back developing and under developing countries.
    I dont' disagree with any of your points.

    Less sure about the post. I find it difficult to believe that release high quantities of gases that insulate the planet would only have a small effect on the effect of temperature. The sun is probably involved, it's certainly related to the Milankovitch cycles. But atleast we'll know in 20-40 years as the post offers a prediction which can be tested.

    I'm am not saying humans are 100% responsible for climate change, but we are partially responsible. Even if we weren't the various waste chemicals we produce damage ecosystems and natural chemical cycles as well and thus should be reduced.

    Also there are people making alot more money from fossil fuels and denying climate change.

    We shouldn't hold back developing nations as that will exacerbate other issues such as conservation of rare species, it creates a conflict between environmentalists and industrialists where there shouldn't be one. That's probably the biggest problem caused by some environmentalists that go down the "the day after tomorrow film will happen!" You have to balance humanities needs as well as the environments to make a longer lasting solution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    I dont' disagree with any of your points.

    Less sure about the post. I find it difficult to believe that release high quantities of gases that insulate the planet would only have a small effect on the effect of temperature. The sun is probably involved, it's certainly related to the Milankovitch cycles. But atleast we'll know in 20-40 years as the post offers a prediction which can be tested.

    I'm am not saying humans are 100% responsible for climate change, but we are partially responsible. Even if we weren't the various waste chemicals we produce damage ecosystems and natural chemical cycles as well and thus should be reduced.

    Also there are people making alot more money from fossil fuels and denying climate change.

    We shouldn't hold back developing nations as that will exacerbate other issues such as conservation of rare species, it creates a conflict between environmentalists and industrialists where there shouldn't be one. That's probably the biggest problem caused by some environmentalists that go down the "the day after tomorrow film will happen!" You have to balance humanities needs as well as the environments to make a longer lasting solution.
    nuclear for me is the way to go for the time being until renewables become cheaper and more reliable. Or the ultimate of fission.

    incidentally, check out volcanic activity as well that spews out gases at much significant higher quantities that we do.

    Im worried about environmentalists who are trying to ban naturally occurring gases.

    but as one of the other posters pointed out.. Co2 lags behind temperature rise.

    and our award for the most dangerous green house gas......... Water vapour
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with AGW is NOT that the science is flawed - the vast majority of scientists are in unanimous agreement and have been for many years - it is that the science has become politicised.

    This is embroiled with the extremely powerful fossil fuel economy who want to maintain the status quo for obvious reasons. So they can afford to pay for the 'dissinformation' to sow seeds of doubt out of all proportion to reality.

    And there is a long, long, line in the history of doing just that:

    1) Tobacco companies using science to claim there is no proven health risk with smoking;

    2) Gun's do not kill;

    3) Union Carbide deny they are responsible for 30,000+ deaths at Bhopal, India, 1984: 'the company has neither a connection to nor legal liability for the tragic events of the 1984 gas release'.

    4) 'There will be no whitewash at the Whitehouse'

    5) Humans are not responsible for Global Warming.

    The big problem we have is that people don't trust politicians and the science is at present impossible to prove or disprove because it's either all by proxy or by mathematical modeling prediction over decades. It breaks with the expected path of scientific proof because we are living in the middle of the global experiment and are decades away from the predicted observations with which to draw the definitive 6 sigma conclusion.

    A lot like trying to prove God exists. In that respect, taking either side of the argument is also to take a leap of faith even when presented with overwhelming evidence.

    There is also the human condition which wants to bury its collective head in the sand: ‘When struggling with the trauma of change, segments of society can turn away from reality “in favour of a more comfortable lie,”

    I believe the risks of 'do nothing' far outweigh the costs of 'do something'.

    We let the bankers get away with it with barely a whimper. history may yet show this generation will reap what it sowed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The other planets are however seeing warming. In fact the polar caps on mars are also melting.
    Please, have a look at this site, I can't plug it enough, it's an absolute gold mine http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

    (Original post by StUdEnTIGCSE)
    1. Ice is less dense than water. Therefore ice takes more volume than water with same mass.
    2. Most of the icebergs etc is under water
    3. Therefore if all of this melt the sea levels will actually decrease or increase only slightly. (Archimedes principle shows us that the mass of the icebergs is equal to the mass of the water displaced)

    Fill a glass with water and then add enough ice cubes to make the water overflow a bit. Leave it in the sun or just allow it to melt. Water does NOT overflow.

    Therefore don't worry about the sea levels. It'll just increase a bit (due to ice above water melting first and thermal expansion ) and then it'll stabilised.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're right, ice is less dense than water. However, you're also wrong. 75% of the earth's freshwater is stored in land ice (glaciers) (source). If that all melted tomorrow it would increase sea levels by 70m, as it is stored on land, not in the sea. It won't all melt tomorrow, though, but we do need to be concerned about sea levels.

    In addition to this, keeping inline with the physics trend, the thermal expansion of water will also cause sea levels to increase. This is undeniable as temperature increases.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)

    and our award for the most dangerous green house gas......... Water vapour

    Water vapour concentration is not the forcing function, it is in response to temperature. And yes it is a much more powerful feedback function but needs something to kick it first.

    You are also missing the fact that in the past there were no humans around to change the CO2 balance.

    Natural cycles (perhaps solar, perhaps orbital or a combination) started the past temperature increases, but feedback cycles then drove CO2 concentrations and hence the apparent lag with CO2 before concentrations became the dominant forcing gas.

    In the here and now, CO2 is the forcing gas from the start. There is no lag. The rate of change of CO2 is also unprecedented. Those are the big differences and exactly coincidental with the rise of industrial expansion.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)

    incidentally, check out volcanic activity as well that spews out gases at much significant higher quantities that we do.
    Again volcanoes are misinformation, particulates are short lived they stay in the atmosphere before precipitating out within a couple of years. They cause global cooling on a shorter timescale.

    It's not about whether volcanoes spew out more than humans but about how that affects the balance.

    The CO2 forcing concentrations of volcanoes are in no way comparable to human production.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    Please, have a look at this site, I can't plug it enough, it's an absolute gold mine http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm



    You're right, ice is less dense than water. However, you're also wrong. 75% of the earth's freshwater is stored in land ice (glaciers) (source). If that all melted tomorrow it would increase sea levels by 70m, as it is stored on land, not in the sea. It won't all melt tomorrow, though, but we do need to be concerned about sea levels.

    In addition to this, keeping inline with the physics trend, the thermal expansion of water will also cause sea levels to increase. This is undeniable as temperature increases.
    Skeptical science isn't independent. It's linked to gores movement and cherry picks data to fit its corporate message in the belief that people find it on the Internet and think its a reliable source. Just like this one isn't independent although ill still read it to get a balanced view.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    i quoted that link as I couldn't be bothered to find the NASA report on it I was reading a few months back as the issue isn't important enough to me.
    So I also won't be looking to dig the report out from norwegian scientists expressing concern about receding North Pole ice caps melting at an unprecedented rate..... From 1911 quickly followed by them going back to normal. Or the rebuttal of the polar bear deaths. Or the upheld legal challenges to glaring errors in an inconvenient truth. Or the fact that I had a lecturer today link the light drizzle we had today to changing climate as if it never rains in march.

    we'll find out over the next few years if we're heading towards apocalypse or realisation that we've been lied to big time. But as for now the jury's still out.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    incidentally, check out volcanic activity as well that spews out gases at much significant higher quantities that we do.
    Humans activities emit 135 times the average amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes each year (source). Volcanoes release ~0.3 billion tonnes of CO2; humans release ~29 billion tonnes (source).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    Humans activities emit 135 times the average amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes each year (source). Volcanoes release ~0.3 billion tonnes of CO2; humans release ~29 billion tonnes (source).
    Interesting.

    I'm still not convinced though as we're now where near the limits of heating we've been told about though.

    when there's money involved people will say what they want and people will follow which ever way they want to be lead
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    Well I'm quite sure a publishing company wouldn't print a book if they knew that everything in it was stupidly unsubstantiated and wrong. Politicians are human beings, they have their own opinions which are often far more informed than the public, if you believe politicians always act on what the people who elected them want then you're deluded.

    As I'm not a scientist or science student I don't really know much about what key terms to search to find these journals but Co2 emissions continue to rise yet since 2002 the earth has cooled. Temperature rises have preceded rises in Co2 emissions. These two facts alone make manmade climate change hard to support
    I promised a response to your article so here it is. I've highlighted problems in his article in the order that they would be read. This response is by no means comprehensive, and I have let things slide because, frankly, I don't have all the time in the world to be doing this.

    1. The author opens his article by suggesting that arguments for global warming are based upon one warm summer, rather than the instrumental temperature record, temperature records derived from proxies, climate modelling, the observed twentieth century rise in greenhouse gas concentrations, and many more lines of evidence.

    2. The author cites John Coleman, a qualified journalist, and Brian Sussman (qualifications unknown) in the course of his article, but never a climatologist (who may actually have a clue about the subject on which they are speaking) and never anyone who hasn't been prominent in propagating the "skeptic" point of view.

    3. The author suggests that the Earth is currently warming due to the return to normal temperatures following the end of the Little Ice Age, a point of view which is unsupported by any scientific evidence. The causes of the Little Ice Age (mostly solar output plus feedback loops) and the current warming (a strengthening of the greenhouse effect plus feedback loops) are different.

    4. The author initially omits satellite measurements of temperature from his consideration of the evidence when he wishes to communicate his doubting of the instrumental record through pointing out its limitations in terms of bias towards the more developed nations and the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

    5. The author suggests that the urban heat island effect is still a reason to doubt temperature records, despite the fact that the urban heat island effect cannot influence temperature trends, and the fact that it has been known about and compensated for for decades.

    6. The author is guilty of gross misrepresentation of the Earth's climate history when he says that "the Earth was warmer than it is now in 7,000 of the last 10,000 years", which is at odds with every single major temperature reconstruction of the past 10 kyr. Claims such as this tend to rely on the claims of geologist and climate skeptic Don Easterbrook (though of course, I cannot say that this is Prof. Hendrickson's source with any confidence because he doesn't provide any). The problem with his actual research (which, as far as I can tell, remains unpublished), is unfortunately very obvious - his data series ends in 1855 (or "95 years before present" - wrongly identified as 1905 by Easterbrook himself, as the "present" in palaeoclimate research is taken to mean 1950, as it does in the data he used), so what Easterbrook and those who parrot his research call "the present" is actually the middle of the nineteenth century, before the current warming began. Add to that problems in his data source - particularly the use of only one ice core in Greenland instead of a global record of climate - and you've got a very shaky basis for your argument. If Easterbrook had been honest in his conclusions, he would have made clear that all he had was an incomplete record of regional temperature in Greenland which did not take into account the recent warming (investigated elsewhere). He was not honest, however, and the denier echo chamber has been reverberating with his words ever since.

    7. He correctly states that the majority of the greenhouse effect is down to H2O but fails to mention that the increase in the strength of the greenhouse effect is down to the increasing atmospheric concentrations of other gases.

    8. He states that "CO2 may not affect global warming at all", a claim which the author presumably pulled out of a particularly nasty orifice. He attempts to back this up by pointing out the lack of a correlation between CO2 and temperature through much of Earth's history, which isn't surprising at all. Temperature affects atmospheric CO2 concentrations and CO2 affects temperature, but no-one in climate science thinks that this is the only relationship within the Earth system that can influence climate. In any case, only with considerable effort could you find a bit of science that is more established, and more certain, than the ability of CO2 to absorb and re-emit electromagnetic radiation. The author is talking *******s. To paraphrase a saying so often used by "skeptics", a lack of correlation does not imply a lack of a relationship.

    9. The author lacks sources for very important claims, such as "even global warming alarmists have tacictly acknowledged that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change."

    10. He cites "recent cooling", when no such cooling has been observed.

    11. He suggests that humans are "presuming" we have an effect on climate when in fact such claims have a solid grounding in evidence.

    Then I hit the second page, read the words "cap and trade", and gave up. There's only so much *******s a man can deal with in a day.

    In general, the article paints a very misleading picture of climate science and recent climate change. I hope you now realise that your source is significantly less reliable than you thought it was. Articles written by economists are simply not reliable when it comes to understanding the science of climate change. The ONLY people that you should take seriously on this subject are climatologists who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. And yes, that means that you should pay far more attention to them than to people posting on websites like this, too.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The other planets are however seeing warming. In fact the polar caps on mars are also melting.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-cc5c23c24651
    I was preparing to debunk this claim the last time you posted it, but I refrained due to your request to keep on topic. Thank you for this chance to get my nerd cylinders firing on full again.

    For the record, the article you previously posted on the UKIP thread (here) has nothing to say on long-term trends in dry ice cover on Mars; instead it was referring only to seasonal melt in the southern hemisphere as the south pole was tilted toward the sun.

    The article you posted this time, while at least relevant to the debate, is certainly worse. Leaving aside the poorly employed sarcasm and the lack of referenced material, the article is, at its core, highly misleading. The article points to warming on Mars and Jupiter as evidence of increasing solar activity, going on to suggest that the current warming on Earth is also due to solar forcing. This would be an entirely reasonable conclusion to come to, were it not for two inconvenient facts.

    The first is that we know next to nothing about changes in climate on Mars and Jupiter. This study inferred via climate modelling that the apparent change in Martian planetary albedo would have lead to an increase of 0.65 of a degree in global average temperatures, but as albedo on Mars likely changes day to day as a result of vast dust storms redistributing sediment, and as the author relied solely on two photos taken decades apart, his conclusions are highly suspect. The abrupt shrinkage of the Southern Ice Cap observed in recent years is more to do with the inherent instability of that ice cap (here) in summer conditions due to odd topography (here (also reported on with reference to this debate here if you don't have access)), and appears to have very little to do with global warming. As I'm sure you're aware, we don't have loads of instrumentation sitting on the surface of Mars, or many things pointing at it here on Earth. We certainly don't have enough to be able to tell whether or not Mars is warming, and we know even less about Jupiter.

    The question of whether they are warming due to solar activity is perhaps easier to answer, not because of instruments looking at Mars and Jupiter but because of those looking the other way - at the Sun, which brings me on to the second problem with the hypothesis presented in the article. The author seems to be under the misapprehension that the Sun is becoming more active, and as a consequence, brighter. It is not. Total solar irradience (TSI) has been measured directly for several decades now. The Physical Meteorology Observatory at Davos (PMOD) (here) maintains a record of TSI, shown below, that shows no obvious trend in solar irradience since 1978. Solar output is not increasing. Yet the Earth is. Kinda blows out of the water the claims of the article.



    Looking at Mars and Jupiter to find out what the Sun is doing, when we could just as easily look at the Sun, strikes me as an attempt to avoid the fact of our situation.

    I am unsure of the source of the information used in the article. The article mentions Sami Solanki and the well-known climate skeptic, Khabibullo Abussamatov, in the course of its text, but I can find no paper co-authored by them that was published in 2007. As far as I can tell, the article is without any real grounding in the scientific literature.

    the simple fact is that climate continually changes. We have difficulty predicting even farther out accurately and there's so many variables. (1)

    the actual degree of warming is a lot lower than has been predicted. (2)
    the degree of impact from the activity of the sun isn't fully understood. (3)
    the earths magnetic poles are moving. (4)
    we don't fully understand the impact of deep sea currents. (5)
    people are making a lot of money out of carbon trading and renewable energy (6)
    1. While you are right, the biggest variable is actually what course we will take in the future. The capacity for error in the predictions is otherwise very unlikely to be large enough to allow a reversal or even a halt to the current warming without a change in human activity.
    2. I'd like to see a source for that claim.
    3. True, but not to the extent that it could be behind this change in climate.
    4. True, but irrelevant to the climate question.
    5. Yes, but once again, ocean currents have not changed to the extent that they could have forced this change in climate.
    6. May well be true. But also irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
    I promised a response to your article so here it is. I've highlighted problems in his article in the order that they would be read. This response is by no means comprehensive, and I have let things slide because, frankly, I don't have all the time in the world to be doing this.

    1. The author opens his article by suggesting that arguments for global warming are based upon one warm summer, rather than the instrumental temperature record, temperature records derived from proxies, climate modelling, the observed twentieth century rise in greenhouse gas concentrations, and many more lines of evidence.

    2. The author cites the John Coleman, a qualified journalist, and Brian Sussman (qualifications unknown) in the course of his article, but never a climatologist (who may actually have a clue about the subject on which they are speaking) and never anyone who hasn't been prominent in propagating the "skeptic" point of view.

    3. The author suggests that the Earth is currently warming due to the return to normal temperatures following the end of the Little Ice Age, a point of view which is unsupported by any scientific evidence. The causes of the Little Ice Age (mostly solar output plus feedback loops) and the current warming (a strengthening of the greenhouse effect plus feedback loops) are different.

    4. The author initially omits satellite measurements of temperature from his consideration of the evidence when he wishes to communicate his doubting of the instrumental record through pointing out its limitations in terms of bias towards the more developed nations and the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

    5. The author suggests that the urban heat island effect is still a reason to doubt temperature records, despite the fact that the urban heat island effect cannot influence temperature trends, and the fact that it has been known about and compensated for for decades.

    6. The author is guilty of gross misrepresentation of the Earth's climate history when he says that "the Earth was warmer than it is now in 7,000 of the last 10,000 years", which is at odds with every single major temperature reconstruction of the past 10 kyr. Claims such as this tend to rely on the claims of geologist and climate skeptic Don Easterbrook (though of course, I cannot say that this is Prof. Hendrickson's source with any confidence because he doesn't provide any). The problem with his actual research (which, as far as I can tell, remains unpublished), is unfortunately very obvious - his data series ends in 1855 (or "95 years before present" - wrongly identified as 1905 by Easterbrook himself, as the "present" in palaeoclimate research is taken to mean 1950, as it does in the data he used), so what Easterbrook and those who parrot his research call "the present" is actually the middle of the nineteenth century, before the current warming began. Add to that problems in his data source - particularly the use of only one ice core in Greenland instead of a global record of climate - and you've got a very shaky basis for your argument. If Easterbrook had been honest in his conclusions, he would have made clear that all he had was an incomplete record of regional temperature in Greenland which did not take into account the recent warming (investigated elsewhere). He was not honest, however, and the denier echo chamber has been reverberating with his words ever since.

    7. He correctly states that the majority of the greenhouse effect is down to H2O but fails to mention that the increase in the strength of the greenhouse effect is down to the increasing atmospheric concentrations of other gases.

    8. He states that "CO2 may not affect global warming at all", a claim which the author presumably pulled out of a particularly nasty orifice. He attempts to back this up by pointing out the lack of a correlation between CO2 and temperature through much of Earth's history, which isn't surprising at all. Temperature affects atmospheric CO2 concentrations and CO2 affects temperature, but no-one in climate science thinks that this is the only relationship within the Earth system that can influence climate. In any case, only with considerable effort could you find a bit of science that is more established, and more certain, than the ability of CO2 to absorb and re-emit electromagnetic radiation. The author is talking *******s. To paraphrase a saying so often used by "skeptics", a lack of correlation does not imply a lack of a relationship.

    9. The author lacks sources for very important claims, such as "even global warming alarmists have tacictly acknowledged that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change."

    10. He cites "recent cooling", when no such cooling has been observed.

    11. He suggests that humans are "presuming" we have an effect on climate when in fact such claims have a solid grounding in evidence.

    Then I hit the second page, read the words "cap and trade", and gave up. There's only so much *******s a man can deal with in a day.

    In general, the article paints a very misleading picture of climate science and recent climate change. I hope you now realise that your source is significantly less reliable than you thought it was. Articles written by economists are simply not reliable when it comes to understanding the science of climate change. The ONLY people that you should take seriously on this subject are climatologists who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. And yes, that means that you should pay far more attention to them than to people posting on websites like this, too.
    Well you have no reason to suggest he's not someone with expertise or with valid research. Also what qualifies you to make such claims


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    Well you have no reason to suggest he's not someone with expertise or with valid research. Also what qualifies you to make such claims
    Actually I do. The man is a Professor of Economics, not a published climatologist, and therefore shouldn't be listened to on matters of climate science.

    Not sure which claims in particular you're asking me to back up. Could you be more specific?

    EDIT: Or do you mean more generally? Well, I am in the final year of a degree to which climate change is pretty central. To be honest though, I don't think that matters. I don't want you to listen to me. In the grand scheme of things, my word shouldn't mean anything when it comes to climate science, no more than that of a professor of economics (well, maybe a little more ). I am not asking you to listen to me. I am asking you to listen to people like Richard Alley, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones. Climatologists. The most learned people in the world when it comes to climate science. The people whose claims are checked constantly by others - equally learned - within their field. The people who, to put it simply, know best. Better than you, better than me, and certainly better than economists writing in Forbes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
    I was preparing to debunk this claim the last time you posted it, but I refrained due to your request to keep on topic. Thank you for this chance to get my nerd cylinders firing on full again.

    For the record, the article you previously posted on the UKIP thread (here) has nothing to say on long-term trends in dry ice cover on Mars; instead it was referring only to seasonal melt in the southern hemisphere as the south pole was tilted toward the sun.

    The article you posted this time, while at least relevant to the debate, is certainly worse. Leaving aside the poorly employed sarcasm and the lack of referenced material, the article is, at its core, highly misleading. The article points to warming on Mars and Jupiter as evidence of increasing solar activity, going on to suggest that the current warming on Earth is also due to solar forcing. This would be an entirely reasonable conclusion to come to, were it not for two inconvenient facts.

    The first is that we know next to nothing about changes in climate on Mars and Jupiter. This study inferred via climate modelling that the apparent change in Martian planetary albedo would have lead to an increase of 0.65 of a degree in global average temperatures, but as albedo on Mars likely changes day to day as a result of vast dust storms redistributing sediment, and as the author relied solely on two photos taken decades apart, his conclusions are highly suspect. The abrupt shrinkage of the Southern Ice Cap observed in recent years is more to do with the inherent instability of that ice cap (here) in summer conditions due to odd topography (here (also reported on with reference to this debate here if you don't have access)), and appears to have very little to do with global warming. As I'm sure you're aware, we don't have loads of instrumentation sitting on the surface of Mars, or many things pointing at it here on Earth. We certainly don't have enough to be able to tell whether or not Mars is warming, and we know even less about Jupiter.

    The question of whether they are warming due to solar activity is perhaps easier to answer, not because of instruments looking at Mars and Jupiter but because of those looking the other way - at the Sun, which brings me on to the second problem with the hypothesis presented in the article. The author seems to be under the misapprehension that the Sun is becoming more active, and as a consequence, brighter. It is not. Total solar irradience (TSI) has been measured directly for several decades now. The Physical Meteorology Observatory at Davos (PMOD) (here) maintains a record of TSI, shown below, that shows no obvious trend in solar irradience since 1978. Solar output is not increasing. Yet the Earth is. Kinda blows out of the water the claims of the article.



    Looking at Mars and Jupiter to find out what the Sun is doing, when we could just as easily look at the Sun, strikes me as an attempt to avoid the fact of our situation.

    I am unsure of the source of the information used in the article. The article mentions Sami Solanki and the well-known climate skeptic, Khabibullo Abussamatov, in the course of its text, but I can find no paper co-authored by them that was published in 2007. As far as I can tell, the article is without any real grounding in the scientific literature.


    1. While you are right, the biggest variable is actually what course we will take in the future. The capacity for error in the predictions is otherwise very unlikely to be large enough to allow a reversal or even a halt to the current warming without a change in human activity.
    2. I'd like to see a source for that claim.
    3. True, but not to the extent that it could be behind this change in climate.
    4. True, but irrelevant to the climate question.
    5. Yes, but once again, ocean currents have not changed to the extent that they could have forced this change in climate.
    6. May well be true. But also irrelevant.
    As I say. Only time will tell.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_...on#Signatories
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    As I say. Only time will tell.
    I think it's more correct to state that time has told.

    Oh no, not the Oregon petition again. This has been dealt with by Pinkhead earlier in this thread.

    "And by the Oregon Petition, do you mean the petition with largely unverifiable signatures from engineers and other so called scientists such as 'Perry S. Mason', 'Michael J. Fox' and 'Dr. Geri Halliwell', 'I. C. Ewe' and 'Charles Darwin'?"

    Problems with the Oregon petition go beyond obvious false signatories; as the section of the wikipedia article you linked to states, no process of verification has been specified, and the requirements for inclusion on this list of "scientists" set the bar laughably low. Did you get a BSc in Civil Engineering, Computer Science or Botany before running away to pursue a career in animation? Good enough for the Oregon petition. Even the sponsors of the project readily admit that just over a tenth of the signatories had an education in the Earth sciences.

    Add to that duplications of names, corporate names, and the small number of active climate researchers in the petition (see here), and it becomes quickly apparent that the Oregon petition is actually less useful than a steaming pile of turd in assessing the truth of scientific opinion on climate change: the turd isn't actively trying to mislead you.

    Peter Hadfield (a.k.a. potholer54) talks about the Oregon Petition, amongst other topics, here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
    I think it's more correct to state that time has told.


    Oh no, not the Oregon petition again. This has been dealt with by Pinkhead earlier in this thread.

    "And by the Oregon Petition, do you mean the petition with largely unverifiable signatures from engineers and other so called scientists such as 'Perry S. Mason', 'Michael J. Fox' and 'Dr. Geri Halliwell', 'I. C. Ewe' and 'Charles Darwin'?"

    Problems with the Oregon petition go beyond obvious false signatories; as the section of the wikipedia article you linked to states, no process of verification has been specified, and the requirements for inclusion on this list of "scientists" set the bar laughably low. Did you get a BSc in Civil Engineering, Computer Science or Botany before running away to pursue a career in animation? Good enough for the Oregon petition. Even the sponsors of the project readily admit that just over a tenth of the signatories had an education in the Earth sciences.

    Add to that duplications of names, corporate names, and the small number of active climate researchers in the petition (see here), and it becomes quickly apparent that the Oregon petition is actually less useful than a steaming pile of turd in assessing the truth of scientific opinion on climate change: the turd isn't actively trying to mislead you.

    Peter Hadfield (a.k.a. potholer54) talks about the Oregon Petition, amongst other topics, here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
    Engineering is the appliance of science. And remember there's a lot if research grants hanging on it.
    All petitions have duplicates and funny names in them.

    I'm still not convinced by either sides argument. But do your self and your cause a favour. Realise that when you start likening people who don't yet believe you as holocaust deniers. You're not exactly helping your cause.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well if you look at this article from the heartland institute I think they will raise a lot of the doubts that I have. http://heartland.org/policy-document...am?artId=11548

    You said the Oregon petition lacks validity because only around a tenth have been proven to be climate scientists? Well one tenth of 31,000 is still quite a big number


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    Well if you look at this article from the heartland institute I think they will raise a lot of the doubts that I have. http://heartland.org/policy-document...am?artId=11548
    Those arguments are now so old and have been so well and truly debunked that they are laughable. Akin to believing humans have never been to the moon!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's funny how everyone seems to say that as though they have actually read several journals proving all of those things wrong


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Engineering is the appliance of science. And remember there's a lot if research grants hanging on it.
    I know what engineering is. I am not belittling it, and I have the greatest respect for those who choose to go into that profession. All I'm doing is pointing out the irrelevance of an engineering degree when it comes to being an authority on climate science.

    All petitions have duplicates and funny names in them.
    Which rather affects their usefulness in assessing scientific opinion, don't you think?

    I'm still not convinced by either sides argument. But do your self and your cause a favour. Realise that when you start likening people who don't yet believe you as holocaust deniers. You're not exactly helping your cause.
    I have not ever done any such thing. The emotional connection of the words "denier" and "holocaust" in the minds of others is not my concern.


    I do not call people like Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton, Anthony Watts and their army of disciples "skeptics", because to do so would be a disservice to the word. What they practice - the parroting of discredited arguments, the fingers-in-their-ears ignorance of the scientific evidence - is not skepticism, but denialism. As such, I call them deniers, but because that's what they are, not because I wish to liken them to holocaust deniers. That is connection that only ever seems to be made in the minds of the thin-skinned who mistake a statement of fact with an insult.

    But I do not tar everyone of dissenting opinion with the same brush - some, for one reason or another, haven't been exposed to the mounting evidence in favour of AGW theory. From what you say, it would appear that you fall into this category. There is a very small number of genuine skeptics out there, too - people like Patrick Michaels - though their points of contention tend to be to do with the magnitude and consequences of the change rather than whether it's happening or whether or not it's anthropogenic.


    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    You said the Oregon petition lacks validity because only around a tenth have been proven to be climate scientists? Well one tenth of 31,000 is still quite a big number
    Earth scientists, not climatologists. That includes, for instance, geologists, geophysicists, environmental scientists, oceanographers, geomorphologists and volcanologists. The Oregon Petition's very own website states that only 39 of the signatories are climatologists, and that's not even taking into account all the potential for duplication, false names, and the proportion of this number who are likely to be actively publishing scientists. The number of published climatologists who have signed this petition is vanishingly small.

    I'll review your link once I have time. Uni work again.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2013
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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

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