Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
hidetheelephants said:
This seems like an opportune moment to repost these; it's worse than they thought.
All consistent with warming up from the depths of the Little Ice Age so not surprising. The last one gives some coordinates which would be interesting to compare to recent times.Edited by plunker on Wednesday 6th May 02:50
plunker said:
LongQ said:
plunker said:
LongQ said:
So, knowing nothing about the ice 50 odd years ago, either way, the usage of the word "unprecedented", related to almost anything, might be somewhat misleading?
The 'knowing nothing about the ice 50 odd years ago' part looks an unsceptical premise to me.In that case it seems reasonable to be sceptical about all information attributed to Arctic Ice in that period and, on that basis, we should be sceptical about any comparisons between then and what we think we understand now since there is no obvious sound comparative method with any useful degree of accuracy that could be attributed to it.
IMO.
As is the ability pick and choose what is and is not useful to one's predetermined opinion without too much concern for consistency.
Toaster said:
PRTVR said:
One of the problems I have is the people who go into climate research, my belief is that it will attract people who have a green bias, with all their concepts of how things work all pre defined, will this have an effect on the research, I think it must, leading to a biased outcome, this problem is not unique to climate research, imagine two pieces of research on housing requirements for a town, one with a socialist view point, another with a capitalist view, the two pieces of research will be totally different.
I can't disagree that a researcher may have an expected outcome or as per this link the researcher was totally disgraced http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/19/us-japan-...However if a good research frame work is applied and biases acknowledged the work can be peer reviewed and agreement can be gained, I think your concern whilst partially true good research is what a scientist is after.
So here is some criteria Qaulatitive research should pass according to Miles and Guberman
Miles and Huberman's Evaluative Criteria http://www.qualres.org/HomeMile-3675.html
Objectivity/Confirmability - relative neutrality, freedom from unacknowledged researcher bias, explicitness about inevitable bias
Reliability/Dependability/Auditability is the process of the study consistent and reasonably stable over time and across researchers and methods? (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 278):
Internal Validity/Credibility/Authenticity - Truth value. Do the findings of the study make sense? Are they credible to the people studied, members of the research community, and others?
External Validity/Transferability/Fittingness - Do the conclusions of a study have any larger import? Are they transferable to other contexts? Do they fit with what we already know? How far can findings be generalized?
Utilization/Application/Action Orientation - What does the study do for participants? What is the pragmatic value of the research?
Just one last point
There are many truth's in this world therefore both the socialist and capitalist one is valid. Particularly for a qualitative approach as long as the bias perspective/paradigm ontology or epistemology (e.g. positivist, post positivist, critical theorist, constructionist) approach is clear then Society has to decide which path to tread
Edited by Toaster on Tuesday 5th May 10:28
it would be interesting to see how many climate change sceptics are carrying out research, without that scepticism I think we have a problem, one that will only get worse as time goes on, it is not good enough to say a paper has been peer reviewed, if we have people who think the same way,
you could argue that if the theory is correct then there is only one path, but I am old enough to remember when the science was telling us that we were heading into another ice age, how times change along with the climate.
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Interesting, you posted a picture that reinforced what I was saying, how thin must the ice be to punch a hole through with a sail of a sub, is there a date connected to the pictures?
Perhaps you would like to comment on the record ice this year at the Antarctic, or is that more mis-info that I have bought into....
PRTVR said:
Do you think 10 years research is long enough to come to an accurate conclusion of the trends in the climate in the Arctic?
Perhaps you would like to comment on the record ice this year at the Antarctic, or is that more mis-info that I have bought into....
Next you will be telling us the earth is only 6,000 years old,Perhaps you would like to comment on the record ice this year at the Antarctic, or is that more mis-info that I have bought into....
Thats the problem with non Scientists and opinions read on.....
'In the late 1800's twelve countries participated in the first International Polar Year expedition, establishing new research stations and conducting extensive studies of oceanography, sea ice, and biology of the polar regions.'
https://nsidc.org/arc/history.html
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/st...
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/st... the late 1800's twelve countries participated in the first International Polar Year expedition, establishing new research stations and conducting extensive studies of oceanography, sea ice, and biology of the polar regions.'
https://nsidc.org/arc/history.html
http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Proxies/Ice-...
ICE CORES http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.h...
"Ice cores are one of the most effective, though not the only, methods of recreating long term records of temperature and atmospheric gases.
Particularly in the polar region, but also at high elevations elsewhere, snow falls on an annual cycle and remains permanently. Over time, a few decades, the layers of snow compact under their own weight and become ice. By drilling through that ice, and recovering cylinders of it, it is possible to reconstruct records of temperature and of atmospheric gases for periods of hundreds of thousands of years."
Note to PRTVR 100's of 1000's of years...........
PRTVR said:
You talk of society having to decide which path to take, but what if science is only giving you one path? There appears very little balance in climate science,understandably if over a long period of time the scientific community is populated with so much group thinking,
it would be interesting to see how many climate change sceptics are carrying out research, without that scepticism I think we have a problem, one that will only get worse as time goes on, it is not good enough to say a paper has been peer reviewed, if we have people who think the same way,
you could argue that if the theory is correct then there is only one path, but I am old enough to remember when the science was telling us that we were heading into another ice age, how times change along with the climate.
If you read what I wrote I spoke of multiple perspectives and that there is more than one truth, all scientists and researchers question what truths are laid out in front of them, the research will help prove or disprove, As discussed Climat change is complex, and one point that raises its head is are Humans effecting climate change, if so by how much and what is the possible consequence. On the face of it its a relatively simple question but has huge implications as one has to study systems and sub systems and try to work out how they influence each other.it would be interesting to see how many climate change sceptics are carrying out research, without that scepticism I think we have a problem, one that will only get worse as time goes on, it is not good enough to say a paper has been peer reviewed, if we have people who think the same way,
you could argue that if the theory is correct then there is only one path, but I am old enough to remember when the science was telling us that we were heading into another ice age, how times change along with the climate.
Now lets for a moment pretend that the gas, oil and coal power stations are effecting our climate, what to do? the industries that make individuals very rich and also help take a 3rd world country out of poverty those in power will wish to continue the use of said energy source. So this is the political and social angle much simplified in the short term no one cares, the changes to climate tend to go unoticed and do you care with your cheap Chineese made good with our relative good air quality that 1.2 million Chinese may die a premature death because of air pollution........of course not because you can't see it and it currently does not affect you or your family http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/asia/air-p...http://www.citymetric.com/horizons/after-under-dom...
So if you mean Science is giving one path to stop air pollution and climate change I think is a yes and no, we know enough to say stop polluting the air and ground start helping ourselves if not the planet by living a more sustainable eco environment and their are multiple views on how we should go about it.
If every household in the UK went the Tesla Power wall route or a hydrogen power plant at home what do you think would happen to the Gas Coal and oil industry and the net effect for the air quality and do you think this may help the climate change revert to its natural cycle?
Toaster said:
PRTVR said:
Do you think 10 years research is long enough to come to an accurate conclusion of the trends in the climate in the Arctic?
Perhaps you would like to comment on the record ice this year at the Antarctic, or is that more mis-info that I have bought into....
Next you will be telling us the earth is only 6,000 years old,Perhaps you would like to comment on the record ice this year at the Antarctic, or is that more mis-info that I have bought into....
Thats the problem with non Scientists and opinions read on.....
'In the late 1800's twelve countries participated in the first International Polar Year expedition, establishing new research stations and conducting extensive studies of oceanography, sea ice, and biology of the polar regions.'
https://nsidc.org/arc/history.html
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/st...
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/st... the late 1800's twelve countries participated in the first International Polar Year expedition, establishing new research stations and conducting extensive studies of oceanography, sea ice, and biology of the polar regions.'
https://nsidc.org/arc/history.html
http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Proxies/Ice-...
ICE CORES http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.h...
"Ice cores are one of the most effective, though not the only, methods of recreating long term records of temperature and atmospheric gases.
Particularly in the polar region, but also at high elevations elsewhere, snow falls on an annual cycle and remains permanently. Over time, a few decades, the layers of snow compact under their own weight and become ice. By drilling through that ice, and recovering cylinders of it, it is possible to reconstruct records of temperature and of atmospheric gases for periods of hundreds of thousands of years."
Note to PRTVR 100's of 1000's of years...........
We have seen problems with tree ring data being manipulate, you have to ask why and then how widespread is the manipulation.
Toaster said:
PRTVR said:
You talk of society having to decide which path to take, but what if science is only giving you one path? There appears very little balance in climate science,understandably if over a long period of time the scientific community is populated with so much group thinking,
it would be interesting to see how many climate change sceptics are carrying out research, without that scepticism I think we have a problem, one that will only get worse as time goes on, it is not good enough to say a paper has been peer reviewed, if we have people who think the same way,
you could argue that if the theory is correct then there is only one path, but I am old enough to remember when the science was telling us that we were heading into another ice age, how times change along with the climate.
If you read what I wrote I spoke of multiple perspectives and that there is more than one truth, all scientists and researchers question what truths are laid out in front of them, the research will help prove or disprove, As discussed Climat change is complex, and one point that raises its head is are Humans effecting climate change, if so by how much and what is the possible consequence. On the face of it its a relatively simple question but has huge implications as one has to study systems and sub systems and try to work out how they influence each other.it would be interesting to see how many climate change sceptics are carrying out research, without that scepticism I think we have a problem, one that will only get worse as time goes on, it is not good enough to say a paper has been peer reviewed, if we have people who think the same way,
you could argue that if the theory is correct then there is only one path, but I am old enough to remember when the science was telling us that we were heading into another ice age, how times change along with the climate.
Now lets for a moment pretend that the gas, oil and coal power stations are effecting our climate, what to do? the industries that make individuals very rich and also help take a 3rd world country out of poverty those in power will wish to continue the use of said energy source. So this is the political and social angle much simplified in the short term no one cares, the changes to climate tend to go unoticed and do you care with your cheap Chineese made good with our relative good air quality that 1.2 million Chinese may die a premature death because of air pollution........of course not because you can't see it and it currently does not affect you or your family http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/asia/air-p...http://www.citymetric.com/horizons/after-under-dom...
So if you mean Science is giving one path to stop air pollution and climate change I think is a yes and no, we know enough to say stop polluting the air and ground start helping ourselves if not the planet by living a more sustainable eco environment and their are multiple views on how we should go about it.
If every household in the UK went the Tesla Power wall route or a hydrogen power plant at home what do you think would happen to the Gas Coal and oil industry and the net effect for the air quality and do you think this may help the climate change revert to its natural cycle?
The point about the the oil and gas industry is interesting, unless we go back to living in the caves, we are going to need power and as the population increases so will the power requirement, so we shut down our few coal fired power stations, at the same time China and India are building large numbers, madness?
Some of our power stations have been converted to run on wood, we ship it all the way from America and yet in America and Canada they have very few wood power stations, why is this, because the numbers have been crunched and it turns out if you burn the fuel used in the collection of the wood you would produce more energy, more madness?
So we have high cost electricity from windmills and their backups that drives high energy users out of the country, where they are regulated for pollution, to a country that doesn't care, more madness?
Anyway this is getting away from the little bit of science so I will end it here.
Toaster said:
Now lets for a moment pretend that the gas, oil and coal power stations are effecting our climate, what to do?
They are - thankfully providing ample quantities of free CO2 for the plants to grow and help reduce the amount of desert and increase the arable land area available (this has been proven via satellite - God bless them) . So I suggest we build more so that the poor countries on the planet can enjoy the benefits of increased life expectancy and an improved life over all.
PRTVR said:
because the numbers have been crunched and it turns out if you burn the fuel used in the collection of the wood you would produce more energy, more madness?
Can you point me to where those numbers have been crunched?I don't think ramping up the number of wood burning power stations is a great idea but I struggle to believe that statement.
hairykrishna said:
Can you point me to where those numbers have been crunched?
I don't think ramping up the number of wood burning power stations is a great idea but I struggle to believe that statement.
I can't remember were it was quoted, but I was on a cruise, ended up talking to Canadian guy who built and designed power stations, I asked him were they building lots of wood power stations in Canada, he explained why they were not building them, the only place it made any economic sense was at a wood mill were the waste wood was available, I asked him what he thought of the UK switching to wood? He thought we were mad, they put it down to the after effects of mad cow disease. I don't think ramping up the number of wood burning power stations is a great idea but I struggle to believe that statement.
hairykrishna said:
Can you point me to where those numbers have been crunched?I don't think ramping up the number of wood burning power stations is a great idea but I struggle to believe that statement.
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/Toaster said:
hairykrishna said:
Can you point me to where those numbers have been crunched?I don't think ramping up the number of wood burning power stations is a great idea but I struggle to believe that statement.
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/Toaster said:
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. So that's 0.0351% extra us dirty humans have contributed then. Oh, now I'm worried !!!!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. So that's 0.0351% extra us dirty humans have contributed then. Oh, now I'm worried !!!!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....
Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 6th May 11:09
Toaster said:
hairykrishna said:
Can you point me to where those numbers have been crunched?I don't think ramping up the number of wood burning power stations is a great idea but I struggle to believe that statement.
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/PRTVR said:
I can't remember were it was quoted, but I was on a cruise, ended up talking to Canadian guy who built and designed power stations, I asked him were they building lots of wood power stations in Canada, he explained why they were not building them, the only place it made any economic sense was at a wood mill were the waste wood was available, I asked him what he thought of the UK switching to wood? He thought we were mad, they put it down to the after effects of mad cow disease.
I can see it not working on econmoic grounds. It makes little sense to me. A small amount of capacity to use up the 'waste' wood that's not much use for anything else and only has a marginal cost to harvest seems ok. Converting Drax to run on wood pellets seems bonkers.
robinessex said:
Toaster said:
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. So that's 0.0351% extra us dirty humans have contributed then. Oh, now I'm worried !!!!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....
So you should be, think of all that extra growth on plant life.Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. So that's 0.0351% extra us dirty humans have contributed then. Oh, now I'm worried !!!!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....
Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 6th May 11:09
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff