Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
Actually it's the exact opposite of the 'consensus science' view. It's a list of 6 things which aren't supported by medical evidence and aren't the scientific view. I can read it here without subscription; http://www.newscientist.com/special/six-health-myt... (I think - I'm at work and we may have one)
But the list only exist because at one time, until quite recently, they were often presented (or perhapos mis-presented) as 'scientific facts' or at least medical facts and the public, generally, accepted them as good advice or whatever. There was no major campaign to point of the flaws in the advice and so it became generally accepted by assumed concensus.Once established it not so easy to break the myth. As we will find with many 'modern' challenges as well, not the least being AGW and all of it's spinoffs.
LongQ said:
But the list only exist because at one time, until quite recently, they were often presented (or perhapos mis-presented) as 'scientific facts' or at least medical facts and the public, generally, accepted them as good advice or whatever. There was no major campaign to point of the flaws in the advice and so it became generally accepted by assumed concensus.
Once established it not so easy to break the myth. As we will find with many 'modern' challenges as well, not the least being AGW and all of it's spinoffs.
Quite a lot of the list have and had no basis in the scientific literature at all, other than "Antioxidant pills help you live longer" which was the result of in vitro stuff working, in vivo not so much. Your point that it takes a long time to shift a consensus view is, of course, valid though. The cause of stomach ulcers being a classic example in medicine.Once established it not so easy to break the myth. As we will find with many 'modern' challenges as well, not the least being AGW and all of it's spinoffs.
hairykrishna said:
LongQ said:
But the list only exist because at one time, until quite recently, they were often presented (or perhapos mis-presented) as 'scientific facts' or at least medical facts and the public, generally, accepted them as good advice or whatever. There was no major campaign to point of the flaws in the advice and so it became generally accepted by assumed concensus.
Once established it not so easy to break the myth. As we will find with many 'modern' challenges as well, not the least being AGW and all of it's spinoffs.
Quite a lot of the list have and had no basis in the scientific literature at all, other than "Antioxidant pills help you live longer" which was the result of in vitro stuff working, in vivo not so much. Your point that it takes a long time to shift a consensus view is, of course, valid though. The cause of stomach ulcers being a classic example in medicine.Once established it not so easy to break the myth. As we will find with many 'modern' challenges as well, not the least being AGW and all of it's spinoffs.
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 11th September 00:21
One of the first opening statements to this very thread contains a set of statements I have not seen disputed convincingly but nor have I seen written together anywhere else
Just a quick basic facts check here, Current CO2 levels in atmosphere are 390ppm or 0.039% of total and since around the start of the industrial revolution Co2 has increased from about 250ppm or 0.025% . A gain of about 140ppm or 0.014% of atmosphere.
How much Co2 are we the humans responsible for ? 4% of that 0.039% is the claim, is this still confirmed or denied or just speculation at the moment ?
I am having an excellent discussion with a friend of mine and want to just clear those points up as confirmed before I argue them, Peer review on PH if you will !
Just a quick basic facts check here, Current CO2 levels in atmosphere are 390ppm or 0.039% of total and since around the start of the industrial revolution Co2 has increased from about 250ppm or 0.025% . A gain of about 140ppm or 0.014% of atmosphere.
How much Co2 are we the humans responsible for ? 4% of that 0.039% is the claim, is this still confirmed or denied or just speculation at the moment ?
I am having an excellent discussion with a friend of mine and want to just clear those points up as confirmed before I argue them, Peer review on PH if you will !
V88Dicky said:
"CO2 follows or lags temperature by around 600 years, therefore cannot be a driver of climatic temperatures"
Is all the above this still a basic tenet of truth a few years after it was typed ?In the spirit of 'peer review' from people you don't necessarily agree with...
The lag thing is still hotly debated. Google the massive ststorm over last years Shakun et al Nature paper.
Getragdogleg said:
How much Co2 are we the humans responsible for ? 4% of that 0.039% is the claim, is this still confirmed or denied or just speculation at the moment ?
Presumably you mean 40% not 4? Confirmed, although I'm sure there will be vigorous disagreement.The lag thing is still hotly debated. Google the massive ststorm over last years Shakun et al Nature paper.
hairykrishna said:
In the spirit of 'peer review' from people you don't necessarily agree with...
The lag thing is still hotly debated. Google the massive ststorm over last years Shakun et al Nature paper.
It makes for good science if there is disagreement, I am not just going to disregard anything that one side or the other posts in terms of facts so I come at this with an open mind even if that open mind is currently being won by the "no, we are not making the difference claimed" side.Getragdogleg said:
How much Co2 are we the humans responsible for ? 4% of that 0.039% is the claim, is this still confirmed or denied or just speculation at the moment ?
Presumably you mean 40% not 4? Confirmed, although I'm sure there will be vigorous disagreement.The lag thing is still hotly debated. Google the massive ststorm over last years Shakun et al Nature paper.
How soot killed the Little Ice Age
Industrial revolution kicked off Alpine glacier retreat fifty years before warming began.
Link
Industrial revolution kicked off Alpine glacier retreat fifty years before warming began.
Link
Nature article said:
Rising air pollution in the wake of the Industrial Revolution seems to be the explanation for a long-standing enigma in glaciology. The emission of soot from Europe’s proliferating factory smokestacks and steam locomotives explains why glaciers in the Alps began their retreat long before the climate warming caused by human activities kicked in, a study suggests.
The 4,000 or so large and small Alpine glaciers — which today are acutely threatened by rising air temperatures — did well throughout the relatively cool 500-year period known as the Little Ice Age, which began around the end of the thirteenth century. At its maximum in the middle of the nineteenth century, the extent and volume of Alpine glaciers was at least twice what it is now.
But then these glaciers suddenly began to retreat. Other regions of the world may also have been affected — the decline was only well documented in the Alps — and, conventionally, climate scientists consider the Little Ice Age to have ended soon after 1850.
However, despite the glaciers' shrinking, average global temperatures did not rise significantly until the end of the century. In fact, Alpine climate records — among the most abundant and reliable in the world — suggest that glaciers should have continued to grow for more than a half century, until around 1910.
“Something gnawed on the glaciers that climate records don’t capture,” says Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria and a member of the team that built the case against black carbon, or soot, this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1. “A strong decline in winter snowfall was often assumed to be the culprit,” he says. “But from all that we know, no such decline occurred.”
The 4,000 or so large and small Alpine glaciers — which today are acutely threatened by rising air temperatures — did well throughout the relatively cool 500-year period known as the Little Ice Age, which began around the end of the thirteenth century. At its maximum in the middle of the nineteenth century, the extent and volume of Alpine glaciers was at least twice what it is now.
But then these glaciers suddenly began to retreat. Other regions of the world may also have been affected — the decline was only well documented in the Alps — and, conventionally, climate scientists consider the Little Ice Age to have ended soon after 1850.
However, despite the glaciers' shrinking, average global temperatures did not rise significantly until the end of the century. In fact, Alpine climate records — among the most abundant and reliable in the world — suggest that glaciers should have continued to grow for more than a half century, until around 1910.
“Something gnawed on the glaciers that climate records don’t capture,” says Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria and a member of the team that built the case against black carbon, or soot, this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1. “A strong decline in winter snowfall was often assumed to be the culprit,” he says. “But from all that we know, no such decline occurred.”
ooops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...
What interested me most in the article was the following claim
"...leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report - a three-volume study issued every six or seven years – as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause."
My perception previously was that governments followed the mmgw party line with blinkers fully engaged.
Could it be,
wait for it....
a sea-change
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...
What interested me most in the article was the following claim
"...leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report - a three-volume study issued every six or seven years – as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause."
My perception previously was that governments followed the mmgw party line with blinkers fully engaged.
Could it be,
wait for it....
a sea-change
dodgyviper said:
ooops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...
What interested me most in the article was the following claim
"...leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report - a three-volume study issued every six or seven years – as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause."
My perception previously was that governments followed the mmgw party line with blinkers fully engaged.
Could it be,
wait for it....
a sea-change
Ouch.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...
What interested me most in the article was the following claim
"...leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report - a three-volume study issued every six or seven years – as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause."
My perception previously was that governments followed the mmgw party line with blinkers fully engaged.
Could it be,
wait for it....
a sea-change
I think it is more likely that governments want something like they have had in the past - the summary for policy makers (that then dictates what the science parts say) needs to be certain to demand increased spending and taxation and wealth re-distribution from western savers and pensioners to poor country despots scattered around the world.
It gives the 'leaders' and 'lawmakers' something to work with that allows them to feel important.
Don't know about 'warming' but, have you seen this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Gl...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Gl...
BBC article saying the Woolly Mammoth died out due to climate change, I'm guessing this period is not the one that the Deluded Ones want the climate to stop changing at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
Apache said:
BBC article saying the Woolly Mammoth died out due to climate change, I'm guessing this period is not the one that the Deluded Ones want the climate to stop changing at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
Error 404http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
Must have been off-message then.
This?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
Seems the end of the last Ice Age was bad news for the big, woolly creatures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
Seems the end of the last Ice Age was bad news for the big, woolly creatures.
Apache said:
BBC article saying the Woolly Mammoth died out due to climate change, I'm guessing this period is not the one that the Deluded Ones want the climate to stop changing at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
That just means that naughty humans were already meddling with the climate 30,000 years ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2403...
Mansell90 said:
Worst case scenario, global warming doesn't exist at all, it was all a hoax, we spent a bit of money on developing new energy sources and making our energy use more efficient... is that so bad?
Pretty good point. Due to how the government levy road duties based on C02 people are moving to more efficient cars, so much so that the government is now out of pocket on the tax on fuelling those cars.You can now get a car which has 300bhp that does 45mpg rather than a 1996 car that had 300bhp and did 25mpg.
So this claim by the sceptics that pandering to AGW is costing you and me money is not the case. It's giving us a benefit whether true or false scientifically.
Gandahar said:
Mansell90 said:
Worst case scenario, global warming doesn't exist at all, it was all a hoax, we spent a bit of money on developing new energy sources and making our energy use more efficient... is that so bad?
Pretty good point. Due to how the government levy road duties based on C02 people are moving to more efficient cars, so much so that the government is now out of pocket on the tax on fuelling those cars.You can now get a car which has 300bhp that does 45mpg rather than a 1996 car that had 300bhp and did 25mpg.
So this claim by the sceptics that pandering to AGW is costing you and me money is not the case. It's giving us a benefit whether true or false scientifically.
Well now this is interesting. Some secret squirrel at the Flail appears to have a copy of the forthcoming IPCC report which will go out 'to policymakers'. Although they state the report is still a work in progress, claims made previously about warmng seem to be ohh, about 50% out.
Would love to hear what others think - unless it's already being discussed elsewhere:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Gl...
Would love to hear what others think - unless it's already being discussed elsewhere:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Gl...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff