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

Global Warming: Humankind’s Unwillingness to Save Itself Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)


    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.
    Surely it's good to have a broad view as most things on earth would be effected by a climatic catastrophe? I would also guess geologists, oceanographers etc. would have noticed signs



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    Surely it's good to have a broad view as most things on earth would be effected by a climatic catastrophe? I would also guess geologists, oceanographers etc. would have noticed signs
    Many have. I know some personally who deal with the effects of climate change every day - I interviewed an oceanographer recently whose focus is the Bristol Channel, where, he says, we're seeing 2 - 3 mm of sea level rise annually.

    But the point I am trying to get across is that the individuals who you should listen to first and foremost when assessing the truth about climate science are those most learned in the field of climate science. Who is most likely to be right on the matter of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? The atmospheric physicist, the geophysicist or the gynecologist?

    (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
    The Oregon Petition...the Heartland Institute...are you trying to pick the most biased sources you can find?

    1. "Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate." - A blatant lie. The Oregon Petition is cited in support of this claim, but as we've seen, the petition is unreliable in assessing scientific opinion on climate change for a whole host of reasons that ultimately make it as useful as a chocolate teapot. Attempts have been made in peer-reviewed scientific literature to assess the scale of the consensus on climate change. A brief report on one such study is given by Doran et al. (2009). The report is based on the results of an online survey of Earth Scientists, primarily based in the US, to which 3,146 responded. The survey asked two questions, namely; "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" and "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 90% of the respondents answered "risen" to question 1, and 82% answered "yes" to question 2. If that isn't a consensus, then I don't know what is.

    Also notable in the results is that the proportion of respondents who answered "risen" and "yes" increases as their expertise in climate research increases. Of those who listed climate change as one of their areas of expertise and who published more than 50% of their recent papers on the subject, 96.2% answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% answered "yes" to question 2.

    Unsurprisingly, economic geologists are much less likely to pick the same answers, with only 47% answering "yes" to question 2.

    Other investigations have taken place, such as that by Naomi Oreskes (2004), which have come to similar conclusions.

    2. "Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend." - Another bare-faced lie. "Most reliable sources" here refer to satellite data, and satellite data has shown a clear warming trend over the last few decades.

    3."Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." - A claim which is unverifiable at present, but which will be tested over the coming years. It is notable that, when all forcings are considered, our AOGCMs can now almost perfectly reconstruct the 20th century warming, so I suspect this claim is overblown. Of course, even if it turns out to be correct, this does not impact on the truth or falsity of current theories on climate change, so it's hardly a reason of "why global warming is a scam".

    4."The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming" - Obviously, yes. The IPCC's job is to review, not to research. It is the scientists who have conducted the actual research that have "proved" that human activities are causing global warming (though that word has no business being in that sentence, as it implies absolute certainty, which does not exist in science outside mathematics). In any case, the quote used here is out of date, taken out of context and is in any case talking about uncertainties in weather prediction and not validity of the science behind AGW theory. If quotes from the IPCC are what the Heartland Institute wants us to use in assessing the validity of AGW theory, then a more recent, more relevant quote would be the one I have provided below from the synthesis of the Fourth Assessment Report:

    "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. It is likely* that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

    Statements of likelihood in IPCC reports have a very specific statisical meaning. Here, "very likely" = 90 - 100% confidence, and "likely = 66 - 100% confidence (here). It is notable that the language used in IPCC reports have become more robust over the years; as the amount of evidence has increased, the level of confidence stated in the IPCC reports has too, a trend which I fully expect to continue come the publication of the fifth assessment report.

    5. "A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization." - Possible, depending on what is meant by "modest". I find the use of the phrase "should it occur" amusing. Interesting that they call Greenland "presently inhospitable". I wonder what these guys would have to say about that. Incidentally, no major temperature reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period as having been significantly higher than modern day temperatures, let alone the "worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC".

    6."Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing." - Efforts to reduce dependency on fossil fuels is beneficial in the long run and need not reduce quality of life - CO2 emissions in the UK have fallen 22.5% on 1990 figures based on the latest figures released by the DECC (available here), well exceeding the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol which the Heartland Institute is so very afraid of. The assertion that full implementation of Kyoto would only lead to a 0.14 degree change by 2100 is unsourced and is therefore unverifiable and shouldn't be trusted.

    Of course none of this constitutes a reason why global warming is a scam.

    7. "Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets." - Getting bored now. Again not a reason why global warming is a scam, as the title would have us believe. Doesn't address the science, therefore irrelevant.

    8. "The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” " - Only if you're a ****wit (pretty much a requirement for ever becoming the president of the Heartland Institute, btw).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
    Many have. I know some personally who deal with the effects of climate change every day - I interviewed an oceanographer recently whose focus is the Bristol Channel, where, he says, we're seeing 2 - 3 mm of sea level rise annually.

    But the point I am trying to get across is that the individuals who you should listen to first and foremost when assessing the truth about climate science are those most learned in the field of climate science. Who is most likely to be right on the matter of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? The atmospheric physicist, the geophysicist or the gynecologist?


    The Oregon Petition...the Heartland Institute...are you trying to pick the most biased sources you can find?

    1. "Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate." - A blatant lie. The Oregon Petition is cited in support of this claim, but as we've seen, the petition is unreliable in assessing scientific opinion on climate change for a whole host of reasons that ultimately make it as useful as a chocolate teapot. Attempts have been made in peer-reviewed scientific literature to assess the scale of the consensus on climate change. A brief report on one such study is given by Doran et al. (2009). The report is based on the results of an online survey of Earth Scientists, primarily based in the US, to which 3,146 responded. The survey asked two questions, namely; "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" and "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 90% of the respondents answered "risen" to question 1, and 82% answered "yes" to question 2. If that isn't a consensus, then I don't know what is.

    Also notable in the results is that the proportion of respondents who answered "risen" and "yes" increases as their expertise in climate research increases. Of those who listed climate change as one of their areas of expertise and who published more than 50% of their recent papers on the subject, 96.2% answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% answered "yes" to question 2.

    Unsurprisingly, economic geologists are much less likely to pick the same answers, with only 47% answering "yes" to question 2.

    Other investigations have taken place, such as that by Naomi Oreskes (2004), which have come to similar conclusions.

    2. "Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend." - Another bare-faced lie. "Most reliable sources" here refer to satellite data, and satellite data has shown a clear warming trend over the last few decades.

    3."Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." - A claim which is unverifiable at present, but which will be tested over the coming years. It is notable that, when all forcings are considered, our AOGCMs can now almost perfectly reconstruct the 20th century warming, so I suspect this claim is overblown. Of course, even if it turns out to be correct, this does not impact on the truth or falsity of current theories on climate change, so it's hardly a reason of "why global warming is a scam".

    4."The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming" - Obviously, yes. The IPCC's job is to review, not to research. It is the scientists who have conducted the actual research that have "proved" that human activities are causing global warming (though that word has no business being in that sentence, as it implies absolute certainty, which does not exist in science outside mathematics). In any case, the quote used here is out of date, taken out of context and is in any case talking about uncertainties in weather prediction and not validity of the science behind AGW theory. If quotes from the IPCC are what the Heartland Institute wants us to use in assessing the validity of AGW theory, then a more recent, more relevant quote would be the one I have provided below from the synthesis of the Fourth Assessment Report:

    "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. It is likely* that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

    Statements of likelihood in IPCC reports have a very specific statisical meaning. Here, "very likely" = 90 - 100% confidence, and "likely = 66 - 100% confidence (here). It is notable that the language used in IPCC reports have become more robust over the years; as the amount of evidence has increased, the level of confidence stated in the IPCC reports has too, a trend which I fully expect to continue come the publication of the fifth assessment report.

    5. "A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization." - Possible, depending on what is meant by "modest". I find the use of the phrase "should it occur" amusing. Interesting that they call Greenland "presently inhospitable". I wonder what these guys would have to say about that. Incidentally, no major temperature reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period as having been significantly higher than modern day temperatures, let alone the "worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC".

    6."Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing." - Efforts to reduce dependency on fossil fuels is beneficial in the long run and need not reduce quality of life - CO2 emissions in the UK have fallen 22.5% on 1990 figures based on the latest figures released by the DECC (available here), well exceeding the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol which the Heartland Institute is so very afraid of. The assertion that full implementation of Kyoto would only lead to a 0.14 degree change by 2100 is unsourced and is therefore unverifiable and shouldn't be trusted.

    Of course none of this constitutes a reason why global warming is a scam.

    7. "Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets." - Getting bored now. Again not a reason why global warming is a scam, as the title would have us believe. Doesn't address the science, therefore irrelevant.

    8. "The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” " - Only if you're a ****wit (pretty much a requirement for ever becoming the president of the Heartland Institute, btw).
    You bat off all of these points as though the heartland institute is just a random collection of idiots. It's incredibly well respected in America, it became respected because there's validity in what it says.

    This whole debate is flawed because its clear a few of you arguing against me study science so the only evidence you'll accept is scientific journals, I would be willing to consider much less


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    You bat off all of these points as though the heartland institute is just a random collection of idiots. It's incredibly well respected in America, it became respected because there's validity in what it says.
    Firstly, yes, the Heartland Institute is a collection of idiots.

    Secondly, I did not "bat off" their claims (with the exception of no. 8 which is a matter of opinion and one of the many points on their webpage which is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not climate change is a scam). I posted extensive replies quite clearly explaining why their claims are wrong and took the time to reference my replies so you can see for yourself the problems with their assertions. If there is anything you feel I did not address well enough, or which you think requires a further reference, let me know. As it stands, you make me regret even going to the effort of properly researching my response rather than posting another throwaway reply, which is so easy to do when confronted with points of argument like these, which have been roundly debunked plenty of times now.

    This whole debate is flawed because its clear a few of you arguing against me study science so the only evidence you'll accept is scientific journals, I would be willing to consider much less
    Wait, wait, I want to get this straight. This debate is flawed because our standard of evidence is too high? :lol:

    You'd prefer we all go back to backing up our arguments with polemicists, would you? You'd like us to stick to Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, no doubt; at least the playing field is fair then, eh?

    For someone who believes that religious texts should be changed to accommodate scientific discoveries, you show scant regard for science.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
    Firstly, yes, the Heartland Institute is a collection of idiots.

    Secondly, I did not "bat off" their claims (with the exception of no. 8 which is a matter of opinion and one of the many points on their webpage which is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not climate change is a scam). I posted extensive replies quite clearly explaining why their claims are wrong and took the time to reference my replies so you can see for yourself the problems with their assertions. If there is anything you feel I did not address well enough, or which you think requires a further reference, let me know. As it stands, you make me regret even going to the effort of properly researching my response rather than posting another throwaway reply, which is so easy to do when confronted with points of argument like these, which have been roundly debunked plenty of times now.


    Wait, wait, I want to get this straight. This debate is flawed because our standard of evidence is too high? :lol:

    You'd prefer we all go back to backing up our arguments with polemicists, would you? You'd like us to stick to Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, no doubt; at least the playing field is fair then, eh?

    For someone who believes that religious texts should be changed to accommodate scientific discoveries, you show scant regard for science.
    I'm not sure why you're bothering since no denier has really engaged with anything you've said, but I have the utmost respect for your posts in this thread.





    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've already said that since I do not study science researching it to the degree that you have isn't something I really know how to do.

    Yes I do believe that but the things that I had in mind were things that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, manmade climate change is not something that has such proof, there are still lots of people who disbelieve it and as some of those people are scientists there will be evidence, regardless of whether I can find it or not.

    I found the picture of the Asian people to be of the utmost scientific merit.

    The heartland institute are a bunch of idiots? But yet everyone seems to be treating me like I'm ignorant. There members have very high levels if qualifications and they are one of the most respected think tanks in the us; the most developed country on earth


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peter91)
    I'm not sure why you're bothering since no denier has really engaged with anything you've said, but I have the utmost respect for your posts in this thread.
    I guess I thought I was speaking to someone who simply didn't know very much on the topic, rather than a determined denier. More fool me.

    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    I've already said that since I do not study science researching it to the degree that you have isn't something I really know how to do.
    And yet you have the gall to say in your very next sentence that manmade climate change is unsupported by evidence. Clearly you haven't even looked for the evidence.

    Yes I do believe that but the things that I had in mind were things that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt
    Things like anthropogenic global warming.

    manmade climate change is not something that has such proof
    Except the warming Troposphere, cooling Stratosphere, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere which have the isotopic fingerprint of carbon from fossil fuels, temperature records, climate models which confirm that the 20th century warming couldn't have come about without greenhouse gas emissions...

    Look, you don't need access to the big scientific journals to be able to assess the evidence on climate change. Skeptical Science does a damn good job of providing an overview, and their posts are always well sourced if you want to check up on anything.

    there are still lots of people who disbelieve it and as some of those people are scientists there will be evidence, regardless of whether I can find it or not.
    It's a strange world when you can't find any evidence to support your point of view, but carry on regardless because "hey! Other people believe it too!"

    Other people don't believe in evolution. Other people, for a long time, thought that smoking was good for you, because disinformation from the tobacco industry told them it was. Other people believe the Royal Family are actually lizards in disguise. Other people believe the US government brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11.

    I found the picture of the Asian people to be of the utmost scientific merit.
    I'm glad you did. I thought a picture of a Greenlandic family in the capital of Greenland was excellent scientific evidence in support of the idea that Greenland is, in fact, hospitable.

    The heartland institute are a bunch of idiots? But yet everyone seems to be treating me like I'm ignorant. There members have very high levels if qualifications and they are one of the most respected think tanks in the us; the most developed country on earth
    That's what I said, yes.

    They are an Ayn Rand-bashing, right-wing, free-market think tank who have been up in their necks in spreading disinformation about climate change because the measures suggested to combat it have the potential to conflict with their ideology. As this article, published in Nature, which you should be able to access, states:

    "Many climate scientists have already tried to engage with their critics, as they did at the Heartland event. The difference, of course, is motive. Scientists work to fill the gaps in human knowledge and to build a theory that can explain observations of the world. Climate sceptics revel in such gaps, sometimes long after they have been filled."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    I've already said that since I do not study science researching it to the degree that you have isn't something I really know how to do.

    Yes I do believe that but the things that I had in mind were things that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, manmade climate change is not something that has such proof, there are still lots of people who disbelieve it and as some of those people are scientists there will be evidence, regardless of whether I can find it or not.

    I found the picture of the Asian people to be of the utmost scientific merit.

    The heartland institute are a bunch of idiots? But yet everyone seems to be treating me like I'm ignorant. There members have very high levels if qualifications and they are one of the most respected think tanks in the us; the most developed country on earth


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Excuse me?

    At best globally the USA is 22nd in Literacy

    173rd in infant mortality

    50th in total life expectancy

    9th in Exports

    These are from the CIA world factbook as of 2012.

    In a study by the programme for the international student assessment (PISA) our of 65 countries. The US came:

    17th in Literacy

    32nd in Maths

    23rd in Science.

    If America was the best ranked in all of these you could claim the US is the most developed, but it isn't.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This discussion mirrors the arguments put up on many other websites. In particular, sites for amateur meteorology (which is a keen interest of mine), the best of which have very active members comprising professional meteorologists from Hadley Research, NOAA the BBC etc. as well as many lay people from all walks of life. Members number in the thousands from across the globe.

    Thing is, the arguments presented on these sites exactly reflect the general trends seen on this and similar threads:

    Almost always they start with someone challenging what they see as the dogma and doctrine of AGW and the IPCC: paid by governments, vested interest in research grants, rampant nepotism, cover up's, conspiracy.......A position is taken and when robustly challenged by academics it rapidly descends into ad hominem and mud slinging. It does not progress the argument and always forces both sides to fighting from the trenches.

    The problem as I see it is that on the one hand we have climate and other scientists talking the language of science and methodology. On the other we have the general public who are fed with conflicting information drawn up by every Tom, **** or Harry who cares to comment. The latter information is more highly akin to legal arguments rather than based in the rigor of science.

    i.e. circumstantial evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt etc. (see parallels with Abu Al Maktaba case).

    The internet provides the chaos because it does not attribute a weighting factor to each argument in order of merit. That means glib throw away comments by comedians say, are as likely to receive the same or greater level of credence as say the reports generated by Hadley Research or the IPCC.

    Organisations like the Heartland Institute almost always rely on individual papers / studies and their interpretations and magnify doubts in a similar way to barristers in court. Incomplete evidence is presented as a lie rather than the march towards truth. Every nuance is pounced on and used to discredited the reliability of the witness.

    They do not use scientific rigour themselves, which would be to look at all the available evidence, draw conclusions and then, critically, make their own predictions open to challenge by the general scientific community.

    As an engineer, I cannot afford to ignore all evidence in my work and look to understand it's significance. To do so would cost lives.

    And yet here we are with the lives of perhaps tens of millions of people dependent on what is happening today and it seemingly is glibly dismissed based on the 'interpretations' of politicians, journalists, big business.....who, let's face it, don't have any conflicts of interest.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Your source of this evidence?

    The global climate changes periodically in million year and thousand year cycles, regional changes can happen in hundreds and tens of year cycles. We know this and can accout for it, what has happened in the last hundred years is we have seen an exponential rise in average global temperature, as well as massive declines in the levels of polar ice. That is not meant to happen at the rate it currently is.

    This coupled with the fact that our population has exploded in the last century and we have increased use of fossil fuels that release gas such as Carbon Dioxide and other gases that act as insulators in the atmosphere it is fairly clear that we are in part responsible.

    True an average increase in temperature can happen naturally, but not in such a short period of time.
    Increasing our fraction of a trace gas. Please just let this simple statement sink in and you'll realise why human caused climate change via atmospheric alteration is flawed. We can't seriously effect the composition of Earth's atmosphere like that. At the least we could be doing it so much more effectively (and would require the concerted effort of all the human race bent on achieving it).

    Fun irony: Life is implicated in creating an early ice age, even a 'snowball Earth'. Our distant distant ancestors were photosynthesising like mad (sort of like when an early-adopter technophile discovers a new gadget that's genuinely useful) and eventually created so much free atmospheric oxygen it reacted with the methane in the air (a good greenhouse insulator) to create free CO2 (a not so great insulator, remember, when you approach science be sure to take note and memorise these simple little truths, it does wonders in understanding the bigger pictures).

    That increase in atmospheric CO2 coupled with the linked decrease in atmospheric methane may have lead to a glaciation (ice age) that data (more reliable than the tree-ring data Mann relied on for his infamous graph, consult the page I linked for the point by point problems with it) suggests may have encapsulated the entire planet.

    The world's accumulated life over a long stretch of time (by our standards) caused global cooling, possibly on a grand scale.

    Some then made the naked arrogant statement that a few hundred years of industrial output of a poor greenhouse gas, a fraction of a trace gas was going to lead to 'catastrophic' global warming.

    You claim there is no precedence for the pace of perceived changes (whether real or imagined) despite the fact the human race and recorded history hasn't extended long enough to reliably make that statement.

    You claim that the cause for any perceived changes are human in origin, despite the fact that basic scientific fact show that to be not just unlikely but impossible.

    It's like someone sitting in a full bath then someone else drops a pipette of water on their head and claims the pipette's former contents are why you're wet. It's just illogical.

    The climate, local, regional and global changes over time regardless of us, and we simply aren't that big of a nuisance to change the global climate like that. I'm also dubious as to how well we could impact regional climates such as the polar regions.

    But the science is there. Study it, absorb it and see for yourself. Possession of simple facts and basic logical faculties I assume should see you to the same conclusions, I hope.

    The burden of proof is upon Anthropogenic climate change researchers to provide air-tight scientific basis. Until they can provide data and studies and models that aren't shot down so readily, aside from cleaner energy sources and environmentalism for the overall basic benefit implied, I see no reason to cry doomsday at our own hands because someone filled up their car this morning. Or even a sizeable segment of the human population.

    Ironically supporters of human caused climate change seem to suffer amazing anthropocentric bias.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Increasing our fraction of a trace gas. Please just let this simple statement sink in and you'll realise why human caused climate change via atmospheric alteration is flawed. We can't seriously effect the composition of Earth's atmosphere like that. At the least we could be doing it so much more effectively (and would require the concerted effort of all the human race bent on achieving it).

    CO2 emitted by humans is a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere does not matter as much as the total amount, as its 'greenhouse' properties are not effected by other gasses. We emit about 30 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, roughly 10x volcanoes contribution. The difference between natural emission and human emission is that natural emissions are fairly balanced with the processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We've upset this balance by emitting more.

    Fun irony: Life is implicated in creating an early ice age, even a 'snowball Earth'. Our distant distant ancestors were photosynthesising like mad (sort of like when an early-adopter technophile discovers a new gadget that's genuinely useful) and eventually created so much free atmospheric oxygen it reacted with the methane in the air (a good greenhouse insulator) to create free CO2 (a not so great insulator, remember, when you approach science be sure to take note and memorise these simple little truths, it does wonders in understanding the bigger pictures).

    Not sure what your point is.

    That increase in atmospheric CO2 coupled with the linked decrease in atmospheric methane may have lead to a glaciation (ice age) that data (more reliable than the tree-ring data Mann relied on for his infamous graph, consult the page I linked for the point by point problems with it) suggests may have encapsulated the entire planet.

    Changes in atmospheric composition may be partly responsible, but we know a main cause in the large fluctuations in earth's climate are Milankovich cycles and variations in the sun's energy output.

    The world's accumulated life over a long stretch of time (by our standards) caused global cooling, possibly on a grand scale.

    Some then made the naked arrogant statement that a few hundred years of industrial output of a poor greenhouse gas, a fraction of a trace gas was going to lead to 'catastrophic' global warming.

    Yes, that's our point in a nutshell.

    You claim there is no precedence for the pace of perceived changes (whether real or imagined) despite the fact the human race and recorded history hasn't extended long enough to reliably make that statement.

    We know greenhouse gas emissions are going up while other indicators (such as sun's output) are showing a cooling. We also know the earth's average temperature is increasing.

    You claim that the cause for any perceived changes are human in origin, despite the fact that basic scientific fact show that to be not just unlikely but impossible.

    That's incorrect.

    It's like someone sitting in a full bath then someone else drops a pipette of water on their head and claims the pipette's former contents are why you're wet. It's just illogical.

    That's also incorrect. It's like saying the plug is out of the bath but the water level is still increasing.
    2char
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Increasing our fraction of a trace gas. Please just let this simple statement sink in and you'll realise why human caused climate change via atmospheric alteration is flawed.
    Nope. I don't see the flaw.

    Fun irony: Life is implicated in creating an early ice age, even a 'snowball Earth'. Our distant distant ancestors were photosynthesising like mad (sort of like when an early-adopter technophile discovers a new gadget that's genuinely useful) and eventually created so much free atmospheric oxygen it reacted with the methane in the air (a good greenhouse insulator) to create free CO2 (a not so great insulator, remember, when you approach science be sure to take note and memorise these simple little truths, it does wonders in understanding the bigger pictures).
    Where are you getting this stuff? The causes of the "snowball earth" glaciations remain unknown, though our best guess is a weakening of the greenhouse effect, coupled with a runaway ice-albedo feedback effect. That weakening isn't linked to methane alone; as discussed in this paper, a drawdown of CO2 by increased weathering, a result of the concentration of landmasses in the tropics (where it rains more), was also probably key.

    Not sure why you've chosen to bring up snowball Earth, because there's no better example of how these trace gases that you think so insignificant can have a huge effect on the global climate.

    That increase in atmospheric CO2 coupled with the linked decrease in atmospheric methane may have lead to a glaciation (ice age) that data (more reliable than the tree-ring data Mann relied on for his infamous graph, consult the page I linked for the point by point problems with it) suggests may have encapsulated the entire planet.
    What data? You haven't shown us any.

    Many subsequent studies have corroborated Mann's first temperature reconstruction, and tree rings, which I agree are sometimes unreliable, were far from the only proxy he used.

    Some then made the naked arrogant statement that a few hundred years of industrial output of a poor greenhouse gas, a fraction of a trace gas was going to lead to 'catastrophic' global warming.
    For the last time, not arrogance. Evidence.

    You claim there is no precedence for the pace of perceived changes (whether real or imagined) despite the fact the human race and recorded history hasn't extended long enough to reliably make that statement.
    That's actually an erroneous statement on Gwilym's part (Nope, I just can't read :P). There do seem to have been past climate changes which occurred at a similar rate - an example would be the cooling at the start of the Younger Dryas stadial, when Lake Agassiz emptied into the North Atlantic. Not that this helps your case, as nothing has changed in the past 150 years that could have caused such a rapid and pronounced change in climate - except human emissions of greenhouse gases.

    You claim that the cause for any perceived changes are human in origin, despite the fact that basic scientific fact show that to be not just unlikely but impossible.
    I wonder how the entire scientific community missed these basic scientific facts?! They're obviously not doing their jobs properly without Studentus-anonymous around to tell them what they should be seeing in their data! Hurry! You must get back to them and remind them of these basic scientific facts, on the way to picking up your Nobel Prize!!!!!1111!!111

    The climate, local, regional and global changes over time regardless of us
    And there's not a single climatologist who has missed that fact. Odd that it does not change their conclusions, don't you think?

    we simply aren't that big of a nuisance to change the global climate like that. I'm also dubious as to how well we could impact regional climates such as the polar regions.
    Why?

    But the science is there. Study it, absorb it and see for yourself. Possession of simple facts and basic logical faculties I assume should see you to the same conclusions, I hope.
    Been there, done that. I would advise you do the same, because you are obviously not well acquainted with climate science.

    The burden of proof is upon Anthropogenic climate change researchers to provide air-tight scientific basis. Until they can provide data and studies and models that aren't shot down so readily
    Done. You guys have been trying for decades and haven't got close.

    Ironically supporters of human caused climate change seem to suffer amazing anthropocentric bias.
    I do have a terrible anthropocentric bias, yes. I have this bizarre idea that a human life is actually worth something, and that causing the minimum of human suffering should be an objective high on everyone's agenda.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    x
    Okay as Kaiser and Pjm600 have gone over most of the flaws of your argument more eloquently than I could I'm not going to rehash their arguments.

    I just have a few more I want to add:

    The end of the 'snowball earth' period is attributed to an accumulation of CO2 from volcanic activity. Also the cause of the snowball earth is still in dispute as Kaiser said.

    I tend to think of man-made climate change like blowing a dam; you don't actually need enough explosive to blow it up, all you need is a little in the right place and right time and natural processes will do the rest.

    I never said there wasn't a 'precedent for the percieved changes', I simply said we can account for climate change due to natural cycles such as the Milankovitch cycles for this period of change. I am well aware there have been sudden shifts in climate but they are typically preceeded by some sort of event. As is this one, the sudden explosion of an industrialised species spread across the entire planet that emits greenhouses gases.

    Also emitting CO2 is not the only thing we do to the environment. We emit other gases, we release other chemcials into the environment, cut down forests, and drive species to extinction to the degree that some people term this period the 'sixth mass extinction event', the fifth was the one the killed the dinosaurs. Yes I do think we can influence the planet on the scale as does the vast majority of the scientific community.

    Finally you really shouldn't throw around the words 'fact' and 'impossible' around too much especially when discussing a science that can account for the creation of one of the worlds largest deserts out of the worlds largest lakes in couple of thousand years or to use your example freeze the complete surface of the planet. Especially if you refer to something as a 'basic fact', if you think something has stood the rigorous requirements need to be termed a fact by the scientific community is 'basic' you probably don't understand it enough to talk about it.

    PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES THAT BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!!!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    I never said there wasn't a 'precedent for the percieved changes', I simply said we can account for climate change due to natural cycles such as the Milankovitch cycles for this period of change. I am well aware there have been sudden shifts in climate but they are typically preceeded by some sort of event. As is this one, the sudden explosion of an industrialised species spread across the entire planet that emits greenhouses gases.
    Apologies Gwilym. I mis-read your post - what you said was not erroneous at all.

    Excellent post, btw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't waste energy proving deniers wrong. It's a futile task and (thankfully) they're in the minority.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BAXX)
    Don't waste energy proving deniers wrong. It's a futile task and (thankfully) they're in the minority.
    Unfortunately those minority seem to have a lot of power (and wealth), making their position seem like it's scientifically valid.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BAXX)
    Don't waste energy proving deniers wrong. It's a futile task and (thankfully) they're in the minority.
    Leave the copious pseudoscience coming from the other side of the debate alone and you risk making it look like a genuine alternative, that is consistent with the evidence, to those who haven't really delved into the science of climate change.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
    Apologies Gwilym. I mis-read your post - what you said was not erroneous at all.

    Excellent post, btw.
    Thanks, don't worry about it. I can see my phrasing wasn't 100% clear.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    A simple question: Can I ask how many of the sceptics posting on this site understand the physics involved with greenhouse gases in the Earths energy balance? For clarity and fairness that question is also asked of the AGW people too. Thanks.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uberteknik)
    A simple question: Can I ask how many of the sceptics posting on this site understand the physics involved with greenhouse gases in the Earths energy balance? For clarity and fairness that question is also asked of the AGW people too. Thanks.
    I doubt anyone on this forum does, the problem with the climate is that it is so complicated abd the equations behind it are just crazy. You really have to know your stuff to understand how and why the climate behaves the way it does.
 
 
 
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
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
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.