Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Silver Smudger said:
A photographer's project taking nice photos of ice in different states is not science
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
And if you wish to have a Citation
References
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Toaster said:
dickymint said:
No. The point is that there is no signal in any data (as regards to CO2) that man has caused any damage to the environment - put up or shut up because there isn't a scientist in the World that has done so yet!!
Who mentioned CO2 !
So can we have some science now please?
dickymint said:
Toaster said:
dickymint said:
No. The point is that there is no signal in any data (as regards to CO2) that man has caused any damage to the environment - put up or shut up because there isn't a scientist in the World that has done so yet!!
Who mentioned CO2 !So can we have some science now please?
You can either read the science http://climate.nasa.govhttp://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and be eloquent in your scientific critique or just espouse crap
Of course it could all be made up and just one big conspiracy just like the moon landings and of course the anti CO2 and climate change lobby may just prefer this type of IQ aptitude test....Would you pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-QSeriously though there are multiple issues surrounding climate change more is understood that ever before and much is still needed to be learnt. Tell me of one piece of scientific research in regards to climate change you have personally carried out and written up or contributed to and I will be more than happy to read it.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
So have you read and critiqued the following papers?
References
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
National Snow and Ice Data Center
World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+A...
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidifica...
C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
Edited by Toaster on Sunday 3rd May 10:38
dickymint said:
No. The point is that there is no signal in any data (as regards to CO2) that man has caused any damage to the environment - put up or shut up because there isn't a scientist in the World that has done so yet!!
A pictorial view of increasing C02http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-...
This time series shows global changes in the concentration and distribution of carbon dioxide from 2002-2009 at an altitude range of 1.9 to 8 miles. The yellow-to-red regions indicate higher concentrations of CO2, while blue-to-green areas indicate lower concentrations, measured in parts per million.
Data source: Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS).
No compare this to the ice drilled samples over the Millenia's and the rate of change is increasing (=Speed is getting faster) whilst there may be no singular cause Man's earthly activities is having an impact on C02 increase
Toaster said:
dickymint said:
Toaster said:
dickymint said:
No. The point is that there is no signal in any data (as regards to CO2) that man has caused any damage to the environment - put up or shut up because there isn't a scientist in the World that has done so yet!!
Who mentioned CO2 !So can we have some science now please?
You can either read the science http://climate.nasa.govhttp://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and be eloquent in your scientific critique or just espouse crap
Of course it could all be made up and just one big conspiracy just like the moon landings and of course the anti CO2 and climate change lobby may just prefer this type of IQ aptitude test....Would you pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-QSeriously though there are multiple issues surrounding climate change more is understood that ever before and much is still needed to be learnt. Tell me of one piece of scientific research in regards to climate change you have personally carried out and written up or contributed to and I will be more than happy to read it.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
So have you read and critiqued the following papers?
Personally you'd be better off spending your time looking at the counter arguments to MMGW, with an open mind, than painstakingly cutting and pasting old stuff that has been debated to death over the years on here.
Toaster said:
dickymint said:
Toaster said:
dickymint said:
No. The point is that there is no signal in any data (as regards to CO2) that man has caused any damage to the environment - put up or shut up because there isn't a scientist in the World that has done so yet!!
Who mentioned CO2 !So can we have some science now please?
You can either read the science http://climate.nasa.govhttp://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and be eloquent in your scientific critique or just espouse crap
Of course it could all be made up and just one big conspiracy just like the moon landings and of course the anti CO2 and climate change lobby may just prefer this type of IQ aptitude test....Would you pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-QSeriously though there are multiple issues surrounding climate change more is understood that ever before and much is still needed to be learnt. Tell me of one piece of scientific research in regards to climate change you have personally carried out and written up or contributed to and I will be more than happy to read it.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
So have you read and critiqued the following papers?
References
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
National Snow and Ice Data Center
World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+A...
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidifica...
C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
Edited by Toaster on Sunday 3rd May 10:38
Toaster said:
dickymint said:
No. The point is that there is no signal in any data (as regards to CO2) that man has caused any damage to the environment - put up or shut up because there isn't a scientist in the World that has done so yet!!
A pictorial view of increasing C02http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-...
This time series shows global changes in the concentration and distribution of carbon dioxide from 2002-2009 at an altitude range of 1.9 to 8 miles. The yellow-to-red regions indicate higher concentrations of CO2, while blue-to-green areas indicate lower concentrations, measured in parts per million.
Data source: Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS).
No compare this to the ice drilled samples over the Millenia's and the rate of change is increasing (=Speed is getting faster) whilst there may be no singular cause Man's earthly activities is having an impact on C02 increase
Toaster said:
PRTVR said:
Over a short timescale given the age of the earth, can it be considered of any use?
If compared to the Ice bore's then yes as they captured the changes in CO2 over millennia 
dickymint said:
Quite simply I probably have as have many others on this and the "politics" threads. If you have read this thread in it's entirety then you would know that your quoted material has been regularly trotted out by the faithful.
Personally you'd be better off spending your time looking at the counter arguments to MMGW, with an open mind, than painstakingly cutting and pasting old stuff that has been debated to death over the years on here.
A public forum like this does not constitute a critique of the scientific papers and given that many papers unfortunately are only accessible via Publishers unless you have academic access I doubt if you have read them unless you have paid for access and that gets expensive.Personally you'd be better off spending your time looking at the counter arguments to MMGW, with an open mind, than painstakingly cutting and pasting old stuff that has been debated to death over the years on here.
I have no problems with healthy debate and opposing views but when a linky is posted showing the rapid increase in C02 a question has to be asked what is causing this. Clearly you are not a Scientist because if you were you would be looking at the data showing how rapid climate is changing and posing questions rather than debunking.
I am not saying all the answers are there and neither are all the papers but its a pretty compelling argument that something is happening and its happening rapidly so yes my mind is fully open.
PRTVR said:
What about the hot spots? Or do you have to go and find a suitable answer from the internet.
This forum only exists because of the internet, there are of course as been pointed out for and against I do believe that the for climate change holds a good case and better than there is no climate change argument. Regarding Hotspots well, the planet is a complex entity and I am sure you can find anomalies but over all C02 is increasing and climate is changing rapidly. I don't have to search the internet, but then again accessing the journals you still need to these days but given the level of argument or debate (lack of) it hardly seems that anyone would take any notice.
The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine
There are climate change sceptics, mainstream scientists – and a significant group in the middle. Whose voice is being heeded
Prof Brian Cox recommended - so it must be good!
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/cli...
There are climate change sceptics, mainstream scientists – and a significant group in the middle. Whose voice is being heeded
Prof Brian Cox recommended - so it must be good!
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/cli...
Toaster said:
The point being made is the rate of change of the ice fields and how the are not returning.
But there is a fundamental assumption in there that is unfounded.....i.e. that they should return. This planet has been without permanent icecaps and permanent glaciers for much of it's history - who is to say we aren't simply entering one of those periods (perhaps aided in some part by man's contribution)?Toaster said:
You later statement "The planet is in a constant state of change, always has been and always will" is incorrect as nothing is forever and once our plant ceases to change we are all doomed but that is not what the documentary is about or states.
It isn't. Our planet will never cease to change. It may cease to exist as a planet due to some catastrophic event or when the sun goes red giant and consumes it - but it will never cease changing for as long as it exists. Nothing in the universe is unchanging or static (unless of course you assume the universe will end up in a "heat death" scenario - but something tells me that is somewhat beyond the remit of this discussion).Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 3rd May 13:38
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff