Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
dub16v said:
... (1) Out of interest, are you able to explain what causes 'climate change' as we now experience it? Is it the sun? Some cyclical system? CO2 from the oceans? An energy imbalance somewhere in the system?
(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
1) The same things that caused climate change in the millions of years before humans existed, and the same things that will continue to cause it for millions of years after we have gone.(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
deeen said:
dub16v said:
... (1) Out of interest, are you able to explain what causes 'climate change' as we now experience it? Is it the sun? Some cyclical system? CO2 from the oceans? An energy imbalance somewhere in the system?
(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
1) The same things that caused climate change in the millions of years before humans existed, and the same things that will continue to cause it for millions of years after we have gone.(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
Man is having an impact on both the climate and environment we cannot keep on as we are.
Or maybe as this is a Science thread http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_y...
Muse has something to say about The 2nd Law: Unsustainable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhKVych80ME
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaig...
deeen said:
dub16v said:
... (1) Out of interest, are you able to explain what causes 'climate change' as we now experience it? Is it the sun? Some cyclical system? CO2 from the oceans? An energy imbalance somewhere in the system?
(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
1) The same things that caused climate change in the millions of years before humans existed, and the same things that will continue to cause it for millions of years after we have gone.(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
Alarmists haven't quite got their head around the Null Hypothesis (1) or Beer's Law (2),
regards,
Jet
deeen said:
1) The same things that caused climate change in the millions of years before humans existed, and the same things that will continue to cause it for millions of years after we have gone.
2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
I'm sure people said the same about river pollution, wildlife in Africa, Cane Toads in Australia, the Ozone layer etc.2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
It's extremely naive to think we can't or don't have an impact on the planet.
durbster said:
deeen said:
1) The same things that caused climate change in the millions of years before humans existed, and the same things that will continue to cause it for millions of years after we have gone.
2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
I'm sure people said the same about river pollution, wildlife in Africa, Cane Toads in Australia, the Ozone layer etc.2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
It's extremely naive to think we can't or don't have an impact on the planet.
durbster said:
I'm sure people said the same about river pollution, wildlife in Africa, Cane Toads in Australia, the Ozone layer etc.
It's extremely naive to think we can't or don't have an impact on the planet.
And vice versa, Cane Toads being an example and the peculiar case of the "Fixed" Ozone layer that, apparently, is not "fixed".It's extremely naive to think we can't or don't have an impact on the planet.
The Wildlife in Africa thing (whatever the implication you are thinking of) would have parallels that have no human created basis (that we are aware of) throughout the record of creatures on earth.
Industrial river pollution is clearly something that is human caused and relatively short term since it has known causes that can be measured, monitored and cleaned up. Natural river pollution events are somewhat trickier to try to manage.
Lemmings, it would appear and despite the best efforts of Disney, do not commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs. However parts of humanity seem rather keen on committing all of use to some form a slow suicide because they think humans can successfully geo-engineer control over the planet. The evidence of success in such ventures so far seems to be lacking (Cane toads, Ozone layer, et al.) so quite why we might expect unmitigated sudden and decisive success in the immediate future seems unclear.
jet_noise said:
deeen said:
dub16v said:
... (1) Out of interest, are you able to explain what causes 'climate change' as we now experience it? Is it the sun? Some cyclical system? CO2 from the oceans? An energy imbalance somewhere in the system?
(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
1) The same things that caused climate change in the millions of years before humans existed, and the same things that will continue to cause it for millions of years after we have gone.(2) Or do you deny that the CO2 that we have emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having no affect on our climate whatsoever? ...
2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
Alarmists haven't quite got their head around the Null Hypothesis (1) or Beer's Law (2),
regards,
Jet
Of course the human race impacts the environment - it's how we survive. Most species evolve to suit the world they live in but we alter the environment to suit us.
Lighting a fire in our cave to stay warm is changing the environment within that cave. Building cities and using power (of any sort, including wind and solar) is the same. That's how we manage to survive just about anywhere on the planet. And of course all those "local" environmental changes have an effect on the wider environment.
If we took all of humanity's energy needs from wind then there would be an effect on global circulation and climate. Our energy needs may be tiny compared to the total energy in global wind, but who's to say what the long term effect of removing that energy would be? After all, the proponents of that sort of thing are convinced that a tiny change in atmospheric composition can bring disaster, so why not a tiny change in global circulation? The only way to be certain we don't do something wrong is to return to caves in temperate climes where we evolved.
The problem with the whole AGW thing isn't that we should stop using fossil fuels - eventually we'll have to do that anyway. The problem is that, based on very meagre evidence (models are NOT evidence) we're being told we have to do so at a speed that's not achievable without enormous harm to the poorest parts of our own and the developing world.
There is far more we don't know about climate than we do - hardly surprising seeing as we only have even remotely reliable data for about 150 years of its 4.5 billion year history to work with! Even if we allow that the various 2000 year reconstructions are accurate, that's like taking a single sample from a 4 minute CD track and trying to identify the song!!!
Scientifically, AGW is akin to noticing that we had a good harvest the year after Molly Smith got burned to death in her hovel, remembering that Molly Smith was "a bit odd" and spending the next 200 years or so burning witches because that's what the evidence said we should do. I have no doubt much of the Church had little belief in the evidence for burning witches, but they convinced the ordinary public all the same, and it served a useful purpose.
Lighting a fire in our cave to stay warm is changing the environment within that cave. Building cities and using power (of any sort, including wind and solar) is the same. That's how we manage to survive just about anywhere on the planet. And of course all those "local" environmental changes have an effect on the wider environment.
If we took all of humanity's energy needs from wind then there would be an effect on global circulation and climate. Our energy needs may be tiny compared to the total energy in global wind, but who's to say what the long term effect of removing that energy would be? After all, the proponents of that sort of thing are convinced that a tiny change in atmospheric composition can bring disaster, so why not a tiny change in global circulation? The only way to be certain we don't do something wrong is to return to caves in temperate climes where we evolved.
The problem with the whole AGW thing isn't that we should stop using fossil fuels - eventually we'll have to do that anyway. The problem is that, based on very meagre evidence (models are NOT evidence) we're being told we have to do so at a speed that's not achievable without enormous harm to the poorest parts of our own and the developing world.
There is far more we don't know about climate than we do - hardly surprising seeing as we only have even remotely reliable data for about 150 years of its 4.5 billion year history to work with! Even if we allow that the various 2000 year reconstructions are accurate, that's like taking a single sample from a 4 minute CD track and trying to identify the song!!!
Scientifically, AGW is akin to noticing that we had a good harvest the year after Molly Smith got burned to death in her hovel, remembering that Molly Smith was "a bit odd" and spending the next 200 years or so burning witches because that's what the evidence said we should do. I have no doubt much of the Church had little belief in the evidence for burning witches, but they convinced the ordinary public all the same, and it served a useful purpose.
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
deeen said:
1) The same things that caused climate change in the millions of years before humans existed, and the same things that will continue to cause it for millions of years after we have gone.
2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
I'm sure people said the same about river pollution, wildlife in Africa, Cane Toads in Australia, the Ozone layer etc.2) I am sure that every bit of CO2 affects the climate, in the same way as if I pee off Brighton pier I affect the sea level.
It's extremely naive to think we can't or don't have an impact on the planet.
plunker said:
CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect is what stops the earth becoming a giant snow-ball so it's importance to the living conditions on earth is not just through photosynthesis.
No - H2O is an important greenhouse gas. CO2 is merely a bit player that only has a part outside of the troposphere. Notice how it's all about "greenhouse" gases when the energy balance is mentioned but never about CO2 in that balance.PS well mixed my behind - it has a dirunal, seasonal and environmental (depends if measured over ocean (and their fauna/flora levels) and land (and their fauna/flora levels) and is not concentrated around the "emitting" nations. Funny that - if you look at CO2 concentrations it appears to be highest in areas of normally higher temperatures almost as if it is temperature dependent
Important - about as important as a single hair on the tail of a dog.
Variomatic said:
Scientifically, AGW is akin to noticing that we had a good harvest the year after Molly Smith got burned to death in her hovel, remembering that Molly Smith was "a bit odd" and spending the next 200 years or so burning witches because that's what the evidence said we should do. I have no doubt much of the Church had little belief in the evidence for burning witches, but they convinced the ordinary public all the same, and it served a useful purpose.
Your analogy seems to lack any physical mechanism connecting the two things. I would have said, scientifically, AGW is a bit like saying if you put a thicker jumper on your body will lose heat less rapidly. Notice how there's a physical mechanism linking the well understood enhanced insulating properties of thicker jumpers and the effect. plunker said:
Your analogy seems to lack any physical mechanism connecting the two things. I would have said, scientifically, AGW is a bit like saying if you put a thicker jumper on your body will lose heat less rapidly. Notice how there's a physical mechanism linking the well understood enhanced insulating properties of thicker jumpers and the effect.
Nonsense - AGW is based on a theory that CO2 IR absorption via dipole moment changes and emission in a random direction has some effect on the near surface mean kinetic energy even though the IR was quantised from the CO2 at a lower total energy level than it was from the surface total energy.AGW does not rely on reduction of convection ala jumper thickness. There is no physical mechanism linking CO2 and GW (as measured at near surface levels).
Jinx said:
plunker said:
CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect is what stops the earth becoming a giant snow-ball so it's importance to the living conditions on earth is not just through photosynthesis.
No - H2O is an important greenhouse gas. CO2 is merely a bit player that only has a part outside of the troposphere. Notice how it's all about "greenhouse" gases when the energy balance is mentioned but never about CO2 in that balance.PS well mixed my behind - it has a dirunal, seasonal and environmental (depends if measured over ocean (and their fauna/flora levels) and land (and their fauna/flora levels) and is not concentrated around the "emitting" nations. Funny that - if you look at CO2 concentrations it appears to be highest in areas of normally higher temperatures almost as if it is temperature dependent
Important - about as important as a single hair on the tail of a dog.
plunker said:
So still having trouble accepting CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere then Jinx. That's the first thing I recall about you whenever I see your posts - this is the guy that thinks that local measurements close to sources and sinks disproves that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.
Given the variance - and it's correlation to local atmospheric temperatures - why do we use the side of a CO2 producing volcano for the "global" measurements? Heck given the boundary conditions between the ocean and atmospheres CO2 levels vary wildly how can you be sure the oceans are absorbing more CO2 based on an "average" from the afore mentioned volcano?The JAXA CO2 monitoring satellites show a diverse range of CO2 concentrations over the globe (even though they are averaged across sweeps) - so given the supposed powers of CO2 why do the mean surface temperatures not correlate? Why do the poles show more "warming" when the additional CO2 isn't there?
This well mixed - doesn't mean anything does it.
plunker said:
Your analogy seems to lack any physical mechanism connecting the two things. I would have said, scientifically, AGW is a bit like saying if you put a thicker jumper on your body will lose heat less rapidly. Notice how there's a physical mechanism linking the well understood enhanced insulating properties of thicker jumpers and the effect.
That's not as big a difference as you might think in terms of the point of the analogy.At the time of witch hunts, observed cause and effect was the truth, the whole truth etc as far as understanding went. It was primitive, in many cases barbaric, and we find it hard to believe that considered it science.
We have now added the concept of "mechanism" to the equation and that is the truth, the whole truth etc as far as our understanding goes.
AGW may or may not play out to have been a real threat in the future (the mounting evidence suggests not) but one thing that will undoubtedly happen in the future is that people will look back at our understanding (of many things) and see it as primitive, in many cases barbaric (especially in medicine), and will find it hard to believe we considered it science.
Believing anything else is displaying such incredible hubris that it really doesn't bear thinking about!
plunker said:
Variomatic said:
Scientifically, AGW is akin to noticing that we had a good harvest the year after Molly Smith got burned to death in her hovel, remembering that Molly Smith was "a bit odd" and spending the next 200 years or so burning witches because that's what the evidence said we should do. I have no doubt much of the Church had little belief in the evidence for burning witches, but they convinced the ordinary public all the same, and it served a useful purpose.
Your analogy seems to lack any physical mechanism connecting the two things. I would have said, scientifically, AGW is a bit like saying if you put a thicker jumper on your body will lose heat less rapidly. Notice how there's a physical mechanism linking the well understood enhanced insulating properties of thicker jumpers and the effect. PRTVR said:
Please tell me the insulating properties of CO2
Really?It's transparent to visible light (or 'colourless' as you put it) but opaquae to infra-red. The sun's energy arrives mostly in the visible light range warming the surface and leaves in the infra-red range so therefore CO2 acts like insulation slowing the planet's ability to cool (aka the greenhouse effect).
plunker said:
Really?
It's transparent to visible light (or 'colourless' as you put it) but opaquae to infra-red. The sun's energy arrives mostly in the visible light range warming the surface and leaves in the infra-red range so therefore CO2 acts like insulation slowing the planet's ability to cool (aka the greenhouse effect).
Yet is merely a minor "greenhouse gas" in the troposphere (H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas - and has so many more energy retaining abilities - including state change). It's transparent to visible light (or 'colourless' as you put it) but opaquae to infra-red. The sun's energy arrives mostly in the visible light range warming the surface and leaves in the infra-red range so therefore CO2 acts like insulation slowing the planet's ability to cool (aka the greenhouse effect).
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
Please tell me the insulating properties of CO2
Really?It's transparent to visible light (or 'colourless' as you put it) but opaquae to infra-red. The sun's energy arrives mostly in the visible light range warming the surface and leaves in the infra-red range so therefore CO2 acts like insulation slowing the planet's ability to cool (aka the greenhouse effect).
And then we come to the concentration,. 04 that's an awful lot of molecules of other things in the atmosphere, even given that not all that small percentage is man made.
Why do you think it can have a major influence?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff