Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
plunker said:
IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.I've a good feel for what the consensus is without having to have it spoon-fed to me so I don't pay much attention to surveys (or the fuss surrounding them). You see how that's subject-specific and doesn't apply to everything I hope.
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.I've
Sorry, couldn't resist.
mondeoman said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.I've
Sorry, couldn't resist being a t
t.
Jinx said:
Space is cold. Very very cold. The sun sends a lot of energy at us that is absorbed by the oceans and the earth beneath our feet; which evaporates the ocean - providing nice warm H2O - and vibrates the earth's surface which warm the molecules of air around us keeping away the cold of space. The warm air at the surface is less dense than the colder air above so rises to allow colder air access to the warmth of the surface (convection) creating a "heat pump" that regulates the temperature - add more energy and the faster this pump will work (the atmosphere is adiabatic - change in internal energy is a function of work done against gravity).
It has been suggested that by slightly changing the composition of the gases in the atmosphere this will have a catastrophic change to the temperature at the surface - and by comparing the mid point of the tmin (minimum temperature in a 24 hour period) and tmax (maximum temperature in a 24 hour period) from a small number of sensors over time somehow has shown this to be true (when logic would suggest the actual mean temperature would need to be used for any comparisons and that the mean temp is a function of the amount of gaseous movement not energy in).
By using a static energy balance model with huge amounts of assumptions and little understanding of the triple point of H2O a small number of people have taken a very complex reality (and therefore pretty unknowable chaotic process - weather) mixed it with the precautionary principle and determined that capitalistic economic success based on easy to obtain high energy density raw materials is a danger to the entire planet and therefore must be stopped at all costs..... some of us disagree but get called names for it.
That is one of the finer summaries of the topic I've read. It has been suggested that by slightly changing the composition of the gases in the atmosphere this will have a catastrophic change to the temperature at the surface - and by comparing the mid point of the tmin (minimum temperature in a 24 hour period) and tmax (maximum temperature in a 24 hour period) from a small number of sensors over time somehow has shown this to be true (when logic would suggest the actual mean temperature would need to be used for any comparisons and that the mean temp is a function of the amount of gaseous movement not energy in).
By using a static energy balance model with huge amounts of assumptions and little understanding of the triple point of H2O a small number of people have taken a very complex reality (and therefore pretty unknowable chaotic process - weather) mixed it with the precautionary principle and determined that capitalistic economic success based on easy to obtain high energy density raw materials is a danger to the entire planet and therefore must be stopped at all costs..... some of us disagree but get called names for it.
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.http://chasingice.co.uk
I really do not think this is funny
chasingice.co.uk said:
Acclaimed photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet.
jamesbalog.com said:
For more than 30 years, photographer James Balog has broken new conceptual and artistic ground on one of the most important issues of our era: human modification of our planet’s natural systems.
He has not been a sceptic for a very long time - But presenting him as a convert to the cause is just politics (and belongs on the other thread). plunker said:
lol, no I don't give a toss about the precise figure that people put on the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming - it's just a detail. Others seem to care helluva lot about it. Anyway it looks like you've answered my question
But don't all lifeforms have an effect on the climate. Arguably plants have done far more to alter the composition of the earths atmosphere than humans have ever done - afterall, where did all the carbon we are burning as fossil fuels come from in the first place.I have no issue with 'climate change'. The climate has and does change with or without mans intervention - even on very short timescales (Medieval warm period? Little ice age in the 1300s). My issue is twofold:
1. How do we know mans contribution isn't overlayed onto a spontaneous climate change event like the medieval warm period. Even if we weren't increasing CO2 levels - the earth may have still undergone a warming event at this time - like it did in the medieval period.
2. The assumption that this change is necessarily a bad thing and whether we can and should try to prevent that change - especially if 1 is true.
What would happen for example if the earths climate started to slip spontaneously into another ice age as it has in the past - would humans try to stop it? Should we?
Moonhawk said:
plunker said:
lol, no I don't give a toss about the precise figure that people put on the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming - it's just a detail. Others seem to care helluva lot about it. Anyway it looks like you've answered my question
But don't all lifeforms have an effect on the climate. Arguably plants have done far more to alter the composition of the earths atmosphere than humans have ever done - afterall, where did all the carbon we are burning as fossil fuels come from in the first place.I have no issue with 'climate change'. The climate has and does change with or without mans intervention - even on very short timescales (Medieval warm period? Little ice age in the 1300s). My issue is twofold:
1. How do we know mans contribution isn't overlayed onto a spontaneous climate change event like the medieval warm period. Even if we weren't increasing CO2 levels - the earth may have still undergone a warming event at this time - like it did in the medieval period.
2. The assumption that this change is necessarily a bad thing and whether we can and should try to prevent that change - especially if 1 is true.
What would happen for example if the earths climate started to slip spontaneously into another ice age as it has in the past - would humans try to stop it? Should we?
plunker said:
Moonhawk said:
plunker said:
lol, no I don't give a toss about the precise figure that people put on the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming - it's just a detail. Others seem to care helluva lot about it. Anyway it looks like you've answered my question
But don't all lifeforms have an effect on the climate. Arguably plants have done far more to alter the composition of the earths atmosphere than humans have ever done - afterall, where did all the carbon we are burning as fossil fuels come from in the first place.I have no issue with 'climate change'. The climate has and does change with or without mans intervention - even on very short timescales (Medieval warm period? Little ice age in the 1300s). My issue is twofold:
1. How do we know mans contribution isn't overlayed onto a spontaneous climate change event like the medieval warm period. Even if we weren't increasing CO2 levels - the earth may have still undergone a warming event at this time - like it did in the medieval period.
2. The assumption that this change is necessarily a bad thing and whether we can and should try to prevent that change - especially if 1 is true.
What would happen for example if the earths climate started to slip spontaneously into another ice age as it has in the past - would humans try to stop it? Should we?
Silver Smudger said:
chasingice.co.uk said:
Acclaimed photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet.
jamesbalog.com said:
For more than 30 years, photographer James Balog has broken new conceptual and artistic ground on one of the most important issues of our era: human modification of our planet’s natural systems.
He has not been a sceptic for a very long time - But presenting him as a convert to the cause is just politics (and belongs on the other thread). PRTVR said:
Surely it won't become more apparent with time, unless we can measure all the drivers of the climate we cannot attribute change, because we will not know what is causing the change, this includes things like solar activity to volcanic activity and probably some we do not even consider to have an effect on the climate, from my point of view the science is blinkered, they are to busy patting each other on the back instead of having an open mind.
There currently is sufficient evidence to argue climate change is happening due to Human activity, how much is debatable, as Carl Sagan wrote: It [science] is not perfect. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, [and] applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised.
—Carl Sagan (1980, p. 333)
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/32355_Chapter2.pdf
( I really do not think that Scientists are patting themselves on the back this is a process that will go on and on)
Edited by Toaster on Saturday 2nd May 16:47
Toaster said:
Acclaimed photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet.
http://chasingice.co.uk
I really do not think this is funny
Laughable, not funny.http://chasingice.co.uk
I really do not think this is funny
"undeniable evidence of our changing planet" Seriously?
Toaster said:
Acclaimed photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet.
LOL really. I guess he never studied geology at school if he thinks he has made some sort of profound 'discovery'.The planet is in a constant state of change, always has been and always will. The people really deluding themselves are the ones who think things don't or shouldn't change and that we can and should keep things exactly as they are.
Toaster said:
Most things are political unless your dead from the neck up, the point is Human activity is causing huge environmental damage and change.
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!! 
Moonhawk said:
LOL really. I guess he never studied geology at school if he thinks he has made some sort of profound 'discovery'.
The planet is in a constant state of change, always has been and always will. The people really deluding themselves are the ones who think things don't or shouldn't change and that we can and should keep things exactly as they are.
Too simplistic, clearly you haven't seen or understood the documentary, if you have any understanding of our living planet it is because the planet has unstable systems we even exist. The point being made is the rate of change of the ice fields and how the are not returning.The planet is in a constant state of change, always has been and always will. The people really deluding themselves are the ones who think things don't or shouldn't change and that we can and should keep things exactly as they are.
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.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff