The Climate Change Thread

[Bruwheresmycar]

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tec...ticians-must-not-elevate-mere-opinion-over-sc

Brian Cox and Robin Ince: Politicians must not elevate mere opinion over science

Climate science is just one area that has become controversial for primarily non-scientific reasons. Controversies like this risk undermining confidence in the very idea of science.

The story of the past hundred years is one of unparalleled human advances, medically, technologically and intellectually. The foundation for these changes is the scientific method. In every room in your house, there are innovations that in 1912 would have been considered on the cusp of magic. The problem with a hundred years of unabated progress, however, is that its continual nature has made us blasé. We expect immediate hot water, 200 channels of television 24 hours a day, and the ability to speak directly to anyone anywhere in the world any time via an orbiting network of spacecraft. Any less is tantamount to penury. Where once the arrival of a television in a street or the availability of international flight would have been greeted with excitement and awe, and the desire to understand how those innovations came into being, it is now expected that every three months you’ll be queuing outside the Apple store for a new wafer-thin slab of brushed metal, blithely unaware that watching a movie in the palm of your hand has been made possible only through improbable and hard-won leaps in the understanding of the quantum behaviour of electrons in silicon.

continued....

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest problem with the debate on climate change is that the debate is essentially well and truly concluded amongst the mainstream scientific community. The principal climate change deniers haven't changed their minds though.

The scientific discussion in the last year has moved towards suggesting that the previous calculations of how much the world would be effected by climate change have been understated and temperature rises, sea level rises and catastrophic weather event predictions are all occuring at levels greater and faster than previously predicted.

It would seem that most people who dismiss human influenced climate change are unlikely ever to change their minds regardless of how convincing the evidence becomes.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Exactly, any qualified person who wants to argue the greenhouse effect doesn't exist can take us back to a debate on 19th century physics by providing us with an experiment that gives us good reason too. Who knows, they might pick up a nobel prize on the side.

But these "experts" don't exist. The only ones who want to take us back that far don't seem to be hard working researchers with scientific progression at the forefront of their values. It is a bunch of people from outside the field, fueled by politics and backed by a mass of random people from the public who have never read a physics textbook in their lives.

There is a heated debate among experts in the field. The basic foundations and mathematics are set, now they try to work out what factors are best for use in models in order to make predictions. At least this way they can set a big error margin and give us some almost certain predictions. Funny how none of these predict cooling in the next century. And also funny how no "skeptic" of the theory would be willing to put their money on that.

But yes, if someone currently believes the debate should be over whether there is any significant change to the climate at all, or whether or not the greenhouse effect actually exists and has a significant effect (ie: almost all global warming deniers), then no amount of evidence would logically change their mind. On the other hand if we could measure a significant drop of energy within the earth's system over a period of a few decades (ie: dropping ocean temps, land temps, lowering sea levels and a stable, or increase in ice sheet cover) it would falsify the entire theory and pretty much all intellectually honest minds would be changed ( the mainstream scientific community as well).

And before anyone says that I am misrepresenting the anti-AGW brigade. (1) I'm not. And (2) If you don't fit into that description you would almost entirely agree with the IPCC physical basis for AGW. Which most skeptics do not.

 

[Braveheart81]

Some of the climate sceptic reasoning has become so stupid.

It's akin to saying that we are currently in a cooling period because I just bought a new air-conditioner and my lounge room is now cooler than it has been during any Summer in the last decade.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

A classic example..

Article... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Met office reply... http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

 

[Karl]

There is some pretty well reasoned discussion in the article in that second link.

Like this:
clivebest on 26 October, 2012 at 10:56 am
@ John

Let’s look at Vostok again. From the paper I cited, “extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr” In other words, the ice records show CO2 is higher now than for getting on for half a million years.

I am not disputing that present day levels of CO2 are at unprecedented levels compared to the last 0.5 million years. However there is clear evidence both from Vostok and ocean sediment data that global temperatures were significantly higher during previous interglacials and also earlier this interglacial. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures. CO2 levels fall during glaciations as the colder oceans absorb atmospheric CO2 and vegetation dies off in the Northern hemisphere. Likewise it increases as it outgases from the oceans during warm interglacials just in time to promote vegetation growth. ( Warm coca-cola looses its fizz )

Man’s outgasing of CO2 from fossil fuels must have some effect on the radiation balance on Earth. Luckily the basic effect is logarithmic in radiative forcing, because the atmosphere is already opaque for CO2 absorption bands. The actual response is what is being measured by HADCRUT4. The evidence is slowly building that the warming period from 1970 until about 1995 is over and we have entered a flat period which is probably due to natural variation (sunspots, AMO, PDO etc.). In addition GCM models developed during the “naturally enhanced” warming period during the 1980s and 1990s are overestimating warming. They need adjusting to reduce assumed feedbacks.

Oil production will likely peak around 2020-2030 and prices will rise as demand exceeds supply. Likewise cheap coal will become more expensive as it becomes more difficult to extract (and sell to China !). For purely economic reasons we should research new forms of energy. Even the most optimistic forecasts for renewables foresees a maximum of about 25% of UK energy needs. So either we reduce the population to 10 million or we go with nuclear. There is no other choice.

 

[wilful]

In the same vein, check out this graph:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Five periods of cooling since 1970!!!!

 

[Gnostic]

A while ago now I posted about the heat Island effect magnifying climate change and exacerbating any changes for the cities. When talking about climate change we are taking a far too narrow view politically, IMO concentrating too much on CO2 emissions. A multi facetted approach will be required to slow the change and emissions controls will only go so far.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...get-more-hot-and-bothered-20130708-2pmcv.html

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I read an article in the newspaper the other day demonstrating how underfunded the department of planning is in West Oz. I imagine the case is similar on a national scale too. Last night on Q&A Malcom said something about removing stages on urban planning in the name of deregulation. Add to that several governments who are in power right now are focused on cutting costs in areas like this.

Hopefully more articles about this get circulated and people start realizing why planning infrastructure/urban arrangements is actually an extremely important role of the government, not some needless "red tape" we can all do without.

 

[Runner]

Mathus had a scientific theory about population.
Nostrudumus also was a scientist with theories.
I think climate change is true but the scientific theory is not agreed to be all scientists so it leaves doubt.
To balance the above disproved fellows we Copurnicus who believed alone as did Galelao.

 

[Braveheart81]

Mathus had a scientific theory about population.
Nostrudumus also was a scientist with theories.
I think climate change is true but the scientific theory is not agreed to be all scientists so it leaves doubt.
To balance the above disproved fellows we Copurnicus who believed alone as did Galelao.

The quantity of scientists as well as the sophistication of modern scientific research are chalk and cheese with scientific research in the 15/1600's.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

 

[Runner]

Best in their day.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Mathus had a scientific theory about population.
Nostrudumus also was a scientist with theories.
I think climate change is true but the scientific theory is not agreed to be all scientists so it leaves doubt.
To balance the above disproved fellows we Copurnicus who believed alone as did Galelao.

There isn't a single scientific theory that this rant couldn't apply to.

 

[Braveheart81]

Best in their day.

I'm not really sure if you're actually convinced that the few outliers when it comes to climate science are going to be proven correct or if you're just a troll. (we are literally talking about 99% of the world's climate scientists agreeing that climate change is being caused by human activity versus a small group of scientists whose theories have mostly been debunked because they cherry pick data).

Let's not forget that Galileo's accusers were the church because his theory of heliocentrism contradicted the bible. It wasn't because a whole heap of scientists had extensive scientific research to prove the Earth was flat and was the centre of the universe.

 

[Runner]

I'm not really sure if you're actually convinced that the few outliers when it comes to climate science are going to be proven correct or if you're just a troll. (we are literally talking about 99% of the world's climate scientists agreeing that climate change is being caused by human activity versus a small group of scientists whose theories have mostly been debunked because they cherry pick data).

Let's not forget that Galileo's accusers were the church because his theory of heliocentrism contradicted the bible. It wasn't because a whole heap of scientists had extensive scientific research to prove the Earth was flat and was the centre of the universe.

Name calling is unnecessary.

I have said I agree with the position but remember that today's scientific fact maybe tomorrows "how could they have thought that".

 

[Braveheart81]

Name calling is unnecessary.

I have said I agree with the position but remember that today's scientific fact maybe tomorrows "how could they have thought that".

Basing policy on the expectation and/or hope that the overwhelming majority of the science is wrong seems like a good way to end up like the dinosaurs.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Name calling is unnecessary.

I have said I agree with the position but remember that today's scientific fact maybe tomorrows "how could they have thought that".

People in the middle ages who were wrong about the earth being flat, or in the centre of the solar system turned out to be wrong, but not by much. The progress of science is interesting, give this a read: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

 

[Runner]

an excellent article

 

[Rock Lobster]

New to this thread & not sure it's been discussed but how do you guys reconcile the fact that global temperature has barely risen a hundredth of a degree for the last 16 years while CO2 levels have continued to rise?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The problem is that people who study the global climate and understand the theory of anthropogenic global warming are not the ones who keep repeating this line.

They are the ones in a position to judge whether or not the theory stands up to scrutiny and for whatever reason, according to the professionals, this "fact" hasn't turned the idea on it's head yet. I suppose you'll have to ask them why. And if anyone disagrees there's plenty of jobs at the CSIRO, chuck in an application and get on the next boat to Antarctica to show them all how atmospheric physics and geology research, along with the resulting statistical analysis should be done.

Now, a skeptical person like myself from the outside would look at that claim and ask. "Why 16 years?", that's a pretty obscure number. If there has been significant warming for 20 years, 19 years, 18 years, 17 years, 15 years, 14 years 13 years, ect... Then it kind of renders that statement useless.

Also, one might ask whether or not the extra energy being added to the earth's system is being absorbed in places other than the atmosphere. And from what I remember it's actually the case that most of the energy being absorbed by the earth as a result of the increase in greenhouse effect is done so in the oceans. So that's something you might want to look at there.

We could even assume the entire idea of atmospheric warming is wrong for a second. There is still lots of energy to be accounted for, and we'd still need to study whether or not that change will imbalance an aspect of the climate in a way that harms human civilization.

But saying all of that, the original point I would make is that the claim that this "fact" turns the theory of AGW on it's head seems to originate from journalists, not professional researchers in this field. And we all know how badly journalists screw science up.