Climate Change, the Surge...
Scroll to see replies
I asked for an original source for these diagrams because I want a formal definition of what "level of scientific understanding" means. I have been able to find, myself, a definition of this and it is contrary to what you seem to believe it means. If it means something else then feel free to show that it is defined otherwise, but that responsibility is yours. If you don't provide the original source then you have nothing to work with.
The link you gave was to their front page. The PDF may have been on that page, somewhere, but it is not my responsibility to fish it out on your behalf. If you are unable to link this yourself, you could give the name of it or where it can be located (and no, saying 'just look on the front page' isn't an answer).
When I brought up clouds, it was because you brought it up in your previous reply. You mentioned how there is a +ve and -ve effect in the interval. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I took your original image search for granted but found no reference to clouds on them. You seem very easy to be humoured if you find any of that funny...?
Given that I am currently typing this on mobile, I cannot link you directly to the PDF version of the IPCC's 5th assessment report. I have, however, given you the exact name of the report and an article which contains a direct link to it. I am more than happy to provide a direct link to the PDF when I return home, if you would rather have it that way.
In that report, they conclude that human activity contributed to more than half of the warming.
The link you gave was to their front page. The PDF may have been on that page, somewhere, but it is not my responsibility to fish it out on your behalf. If you are unable to link this yourself, you could give the name of it or where it can be located (and no, saying 'just look on the front page' isn't an answer).
When I brought up clouds, it was because you brought it up in your previous reply. You mentioned how there is a +ve and -ve effect in the interval. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I took your original image search for granted but found no reference to clouds on them. You seem very easy to be humoured if you find any of that funny...?
Given that I am currently typing this on mobile, I cannot link you directly to the PDF version of the IPCC's 5th assessment report. I have, however, given you the exact name of the report and an article which contains a direct link to it. I am more than happy to provide a direct link to the PDF when I return home, if you would rather have it that way.
In that report, they conclude that human activity contributed to more than half of the warming.
(edited 4 years ago)
You going to make an actual specific citation, or just demand that people make their way through an entire 1500+ page report to find one detail you claim is in there somewhere?
Original post by Plagioclase
I don't know what that is, but the Wikipedia article describes it as a magazine, not a journal. I don't know if there are different standards in the humanities but in science, any journal remotely worth taking seriously is peer-reviewed.
It's the house journal of the US Council on Foreign Relations, which is a centrist long-running US talking shop / policy wonk outfit that discusses US foreign affairs and writes reports and holds conferences. They are a favourite target for the Trumpite Right in the US, often cited in conspiradroid theories as being in league with the Illuminati or whatnot. They were also probably quite strongly tied to the CIA in the Cold War, but with a sort of independent streak. They are a heavyweight body and Foreign Affairs is a serious, weighty intellectual enterprise, but it isn't peer reviewed or anything.
In page 60 of their technical summary, they state "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.". I'm going to take an educated guess and say that "dominant" means 'most', in their case.
The definition you've quoted for LOSU matches what I had said earlier.
The definition you've quoted for LOSU matches what I had said earlier.
Question: Have you ever had to reference something, such as a journal or an academic report, as part of coursework or an assignment at school or university?
"It is extremely likely that human activitis caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010". That is what they have said in their report so that is what I will believe to be true.
The factors that are affecting the climate are understood enough for us to guage whether human activity is causing a net warming effect, which it is.
The factors that are affecting the climate are understood enough for us to guage whether human activity is causing a net warming effect, which it is.
Not at all, I am asking you a question.
Have you ever had to reference something in a formal/academic environment before, yes or no?
Have you ever had to reference something in a formal/academic environment before, yes or no?
The technical summary and the summary for policy makers are two separate sections of the 5th Assessment Report (see page 15 of the PDF). The line which reads that human activity has caused more than half of the observed surface warming comes from the technical summary (see page 60 of the PDF), not the summary for policy makers. The technical summary acts as a... summary, in particular a summary of the scientific findings/statements of the report.
Existing LOSU gives us estimates of the effects of various factors on the Earth's temperature. Based on our current LOSU, the factors which warm the planet outweigh those that cool it. Our LOSU is good enough for us to make that conclusion; even if we give ourselves the most generous estimates human activity is still having a net warming on the planet.
I don't have any opinion on the policies relating to how we tackle climate change, nor would I under that hypothetical.
You're missing the point.
You've clearly made this thread to change people's opinions on this subject. People here will already disagree with you and chances are they will just pass you off as a climate denier or a troll. If you want to change people's opinions, you should be expected to provide decent evidence to support your own. Citing a 1500 page report and telling people to just 'look it up' when they ask for clarity/evidence is a stupid thing to do; not only is it not anyone else's job to justify your opinions, but nobody in their right mind will want to sift a document of that size.
If you have ever had to cite or reference something in an academic environment, or have needed to find a reference or citation if you are doing your own research, you would understand the necessity and usefulness explicit references, even in a discussion forum like this. 'The evidence is in this book, go read it and stop farting around' isn't helpful to anyone and only makes you look inexperienced.
Existing LOSU gives us estimates of the effects of various factors on the Earth's temperature. Based on our current LOSU, the factors which warm the planet outweigh those that cool it. Our LOSU is good enough for us to make that conclusion; even if we give ourselves the most generous estimates human activity is still having a net warming on the planet.
I don't have any opinion on the policies relating to how we tackle climate change, nor would I under that hypothetical.
You're missing the point.
You've clearly made this thread to change people's opinions on this subject. People here will already disagree with you and chances are they will just pass you off as a climate denier or a troll. If you want to change people's opinions, you should be expected to provide decent evidence to support your own. Citing a 1500 page report and telling people to just 'look it up' when they ask for clarity/evidence is a stupid thing to do; not only is it not anyone else's job to justify your opinions, but nobody in their right mind will want to sift a document of that size.
If you have ever had to cite or reference something in an academic environment, or have needed to find a reference or citation if you are doing your own research, you would understand the necessity and usefulness explicit references, even in a discussion forum like this. 'The evidence is in this book, go read it and stop farting around' isn't helpful to anyone and only makes you look inexperienced.
(edited 3 years ago)
How do any of those quotes indicate that the IPCC cannot maintain a consistent story or haven't been consistent?
The report does go over natural drivers of temperature change.
The report does go over natural drivers of temperature change.
All you've done is found three instances where they have used the word 'dominant'. This does not mean that they do not use an exact figure anywhere else in the report, let alone that their claim of 'most' isn't supported somewhere else.
You're misunderstanding how LOSU is being treated. Even accounting for low/medium LOSU for some of the factors, the temperature changes that have been observed are still predominantly attributed to human activity. You seem to believe that simply having a low LOSU means that the estimate is useless or that some widely larger (or lower) estimate could actually be true, which is false.
Speaking of natural factors, their understanding is from a medium to robust level (see page 710 of the PDF).
You're misunderstanding how LOSU is being treated. Even accounting for low/medium LOSU for some of the factors, the temperature changes that have been observed are still predominantly attributed to human activity. You seem to believe that simply having a low LOSU means that the estimate is useless or that some widely larger (or lower) estimate could actually be true, which is false.
Speaking of natural factors, their understanding is from a medium to robust level (see page 710 of the PDF).
(edited 3 years ago)
If you want specific information, pages from 675 of the PDF give a lot of detail. In particular, figures 8.15 and 8.16 on page 713, 8.17 on page 714 and 8.20 on page 716 may be of interest. Figure 8.18 includes both solar irradiance and volcanic output (the latter being omitted from previous figures due to it's lack of consistent periodicity). The same observation applies to all of them; anthropogenic outweighs natural and anthropogenic warming outweights anthropogenic cooling.
Low LOSU =/= No Understanding. Low LOSU only means that there is disagreement among scientists on to the extent to which a factor affects the cooling/warming of the Earth. It does not mean that they have no idea entirely. Some believe that it should be high, some believe that it should be low. Both agree that it should be between those two values but they cannot agree where. The IPCC reports on somewhere inbetween.
Low LOSU =/= No Understanding. Low LOSU only means that there is disagreement among scientists on to the extent to which a factor affects the cooling/warming of the Earth. It does not mean that they have no idea entirely. Some believe that it should be high, some believe that it should be low. Both agree that it should be between those two values but they cannot agree where. The IPCC reports on somewhere inbetween.
(edited 4 years ago)
I did:
"In particular, figures 8.15 and 8.16 on page 713, 8.17 on page 714 and 8.20 on page 716 may be of interest."
Figure 8.18 is between 8.17 and 8.20. If you want the specific page, it's on 715. These are all the page numbers of the PDF (which should make it far easier for you to find them).
"In particular, figures 8.15 and 8.16 on page 713, 8.17 on page 714 and 8.20 on page 716 may be of interest."
Figure 8.18 is between 8.17 and 8.20. If you want the specific page, it's on 715. These are all the page numbers of the PDF (which should make it far easier for you to find them).
I've done so, twice now. You can derive exact numbers from the figures I've listed.
I never said that the IPCC did use the exact figure elsewhere, only that the three examples you gave where they didn't use an exact figure don't negate the possibility that they have done somewhere else. Them reporting on an exact figure is just one way in which could can justify their claim. The graphs/charts I provided are also sufficient to make that claim.
You're misunderstanding what I am saying. It is possible that they can both justify that human activity has caused at least half of the observed warming and describe human activity as the "dominant" cause of the observed warming all in the same report. All you've done is give examples where they have done the latter which doesn't invalidate the possibility of the former.
That is what I pointed out to you. I never claimed that an exact figure had been mentioned.
That is what I pointed out to you. I never claimed that an exact figure had been mentioned.
Not at all. In fact, my full sentence was, "This does not mean that they do not use an exact figure anywhere else in the report, let alone that their claim of 'most' isn't supported somewhere else." I never said or implied that an exact figures WAS in the text, but that it could be. Besides, this irrelevant now anyway; I've already listed at least 4 graphs/charts from their report which show that human activity has caused most of the warming (if not almost all of the warming).
I took an educated guess that if the reported claimed 'X' in it's technical summary then 'X' would be supported in the main body of the report. Surprise surprise, that guess was a correct one.
"Solar irradiance", seen on figures 8.15, 8.17, 8.18 and 8.20, incorporates sunspot activity. This only caused variation in TSI by around 0.1%. You can read about this from section 8.4.1 on page 704. Volcanic activity was incorporated into figure 8.20 and, like solar irradiance, has only a minor change on radiative forcing. Larger volcanic eruptions do have a substantial change on RF but this only lasts for a couple of years.
Have I ever studied physics? Of course. Have I ever used a cloud chamber? No, but your inability to declare your qualifications and your general maturity give the impression that you've never used one either.
"Solar irradiance", seen on figures 8.15, 8.17, 8.18 and 8.20, incorporates sunspot activity. This only caused variation in TSI by around 0.1%. You can read about this from section 8.4.1 on page 704. Volcanic activity was incorporated into figure 8.20 and, like solar irradiance, has only a minor change on radiative forcing. Larger volcanic eruptions do have a substantial change on RF but this only lasts for a couple of years.
Have I ever studied physics? Of course. Have I ever used a cloud chamber? No, but your inability to declare your qualifications and your general maturity give the impression that you've never used one either.
I was responding to your previous reply where you said that I was guessing. I took an educated guess that their claim was supported in the remaining body of the report, which it was. It's really not difficult to understand that.
The effect of aerosol participles on clouds is included in the diagrams I gave you, if that's what you're talking about. It's interesting that you mention CERN's research, since they found that the effect of sun spots on cloud formation was not enough to affect the climate.
What are your qualifications?
The effect of aerosol participles on clouds is included in the diagrams I gave you, if that's what you're talking about. It's interesting that you mention CERN's research, since they found that the effect of sun spots on cloud formation was not enough to affect the climate.
What are your qualifications?
The figures I gave you all give exact numbers on man's contribution to warming. The effects of sun spots are already incorporated into solar irradiance as is the affect of aerosol-cloud interaction.
CERN's research attempted to incorporate variations in cosmic rays into global models for aerosol particle formation. They found a weak relationship, so variations do not affect cloud formation and therefore do not affect the climate.
What are your qualifications?
CERN's research attempted to incorporate variations in cosmic rays into global models for aerosol particle formation. They found a weak relationship, so variations do not affect cloud formation and therefore do not affect the climate.
What are your qualifications?
(edited 4 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- GCSE English speaking exam
- anxiety about climate crisis
- Geography NEA help
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Inventions
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Alevel geography hazard 20 marker
- anyone getting really scared about the future?
- geography natural hazards
- Biology EPQ Ideas?
- EPQ ideas
- aqa DT gcse nea themes 2024
- PPE Personal Statement Help?
- My EPQ Question
- TSR Goes Green: Careers in the Environmental Sector
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- weather
- How about Global Creative and Cultural Industries programme of SOAS
- A Level Geography Edexcel 18/20/24 markers
- Reply to become a part of my DT GCSE NEA!! my hw is due today.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
