Well the simple facts are
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased
I'm guessing you're not a scientist. I won't bother taking that apart but this is exactly the sort of over-simplified "explanation" and certainty that discredits climate science in the general public's view, positions it as a belief system and feeds the skeptics. Have a read of what konagirl put above for a more reasoned position.
According to some more sensible, less sensationalistic weather professionals everything we are seeing is within normal statistical limits. We would have to see consistent change for fifty years before they would agree that the world was warming up.
We are just better informed about what's happening around the world and more of us are more affected because there are a hell of a lot more humans on the Earth than even 50 years ago.
Carry on.
CO2 emissions that were causing the Greenhouse Effect
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect ]do go on.[/url]
Well the simple facts are
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increasedWhat more do you think the sceptics want then as a fact?
Are you implying correlation = causation without giving a mechanism for the causation that can also be backed up by facts?
I agree with the sentiment and I'm not diagreeing with your hypothesis but if you want to base you arguements on facts you really need to understand how to use them properly or your agrument will be dismissed on a technicality rather than being taken on board.
However, my point was this; we were told for many years that we directly contributed to the melting of the ice in the polar regions. They've backed off on this now; telling as it was when Attenborough made the comment at the end of his last nature series.
I thought "they've backed off in this now" because it is fairly widely reported and accepted as being one of the main contributory factors. It's definitely been done over and over in the media, to the point where people are fed up with reading it. Perhaps it's more of a case that it's no longer the headline grabber it once was, doesn't sell papers etc. clearly this doesn't mean we dont contribute to global warming, but rather it's just not rammed down our throats.
Fuzzhead, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at the troll comments; I'm clearly not a troll, and it's a little offensive.
You wouldn't say it to my face, so lets not turn this place into somewhere where it's seemingly acceptable to do so.
Konagirl, thanks for your post - I actually have no problem with the science, nor do I have a problem with informed voices trying to explain to a lay person like myself.
I'm not going to start arguing about something I know nothing about, hence my previous post 🙂
According to some more sensible, less sensationalistic weather professionals everything we are seeing is within normal statistical limits. We would have to see consistent change for fifty years before they would agree that the world was warming up.
Each decade since the 1970's has been warmer than the previous one.
Are you saying we need to wait another 50 years on top of that before it can be considered a trend (i.e. till 2060ish) or just till those figures reach 50 years (i.e. till 2020ish)?
Also Climate scientists say that average global temperature has risen "[i]by about 0.8°C (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2°C) since 1850"[/i]. Does that not count for anything?
I'm clearly not a troll, and it's a little offensive.
True. If you were a troll you would have made exaggerated inflammatory statements about something that you admit you know very little about.
🙄
Well the simple facts are
1. [s]Co2[/s]This weather is [s]a greenhouse gas[/s]Crap
2,. [s]Co2[/s]Grumpiness rates have increased
3. [s]The temperature has increased[/s]Another informative STW thread has descended into pointless arguing
Difficuly to continue justifying research grants etc if you admit it though.These 'scientists' have probably got families to feed and mortgages to pay, so as long as they've got a seat on the climate change bandwagon the larder will be full.
I'm loving this - the idea that researchers do research because they want the vast amounts of money, fame & fortune (and overwhelming quantities of anonymous sexual encounters, hard drugs and free champagne?) that are of course part of being an academic, particularly if you are part of the 'climate change bandwagon'.
Given climate scientists are mostly going to be people with a pretty strong grasp of maths, stats, computer modelling etc. - if they wanted a safe job with lots of money and all that they'd have become accountants or something - people become academics because they are interested in something, not for the safe easy vast quantities of money. eg. My pay now, after 6 years of postgrad/post doc stuff (and being quite successful at it so far, in a pretty well funded department) is something like 75% of my pay before my PhD, even ignoring the significant amount of inflation that has gone on since then meaning that the money is worth less than it was.
Joe
GrahamS, wind your neck in mate. No need to be a prick about it. I see your profile explains why you feel the need to be like you are however.
One thing is for sure, Organic355 is absolutely right.
organic355,
[img] 
[/img]
According to some more sensible, less sensationalistic weather professionals everything we are seeing [with regard to the weather] is within normal statistical limits. We would have to see consistent change [in weather patterns on the daily timescale] for [s]fifty[/s] [30] years before they would agree that [s]the world was warming up[/s] [the warming global temperature is a cause of a perceived increase in extreme events].
FTFY. With regard to climatic change (climate being the 30 year average of weather observations), then the climate is different now to what it was 30 years ago and before, as described by GrahamS. It's determining whether or not the extreme events we are observing (the extreme monsoons and flooding in ****stan last year, extreme rainfall here in 2007 and last week, etc.) are outside the 'statistical norm' that is very difficult to say without many more years of observations.
Given climate scientists are mostly going to be people with a pretty strong grasp of maths, stats, computer modelling etc. - if they wanted a safe job with lots of money and all that they'd have become accountants or something
Probably be financial analysts actually, very similar maths (stochastic, chaotic systems; extreme value statistics)... most of my Masters course went into banking.
Interesting and perhaps little known FACT:
The building of the Hoover Dam in the 1950's, with lots and lots and lots of concrete, put out as much CO2 as modern day USA does in a ten year period. AFAIK, the dam continues to emit CO2, as does all concrete and yet we can't leave the stuff alone.
We would have to see consistent change for fifty years before they would agree that the world was warming up.
Minimum. How long has the earth been spinning around our star? How long have we been collecting meteorological data?
Each decade since the 1970's has been warmer than the previous one.
How have you measured this?
Well the simple facts are
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased
I'm guessing you're not a scientist.
You are new here arent you - I scraped a first class science degree with minors in the philosophy of science [ religion in my early years]. I therefore call your ad hominem to be a falacious argument. Furthermore in this case it is incorrect or a fail and also not a scientific argument? Why do I bother doing this - this it is what scpetics do hurl some gentle abuse rather than debate meaningfully
I am I won't bother taking that apart
Please do say which of those fact you think are wrong - we could have a facts based debate then rather than the type you would prefer
I like the implication you could do so easily but you cant be bothered - its a nice debating tactic if a little obvious [and untrue].
but this is exactly the sort of over-simplified "explanation"
Its not an explanation it is a statement of facts .
and certainty that discredits climate science in the general public's view, positions it as a belief system and feeds the skeptics.
Ah so we have been called a belief system..nope never saw that coming...what I thought is that you would present irrefutable evidence that point 1-3 were all flase rathe rthna doi a personal attack ful of emotive appeals and no actual evidemnce..this is PROPER SCIENCE now ...thank you
Thanks god [you gave me a nice verbal [ ie media type non scitifc or factual] bashing without any data. Again data less science - its the new science I tell the
Have a read of what konagirl put above for a more reasoned position.
I am not sure why you think they would disagree with any of those facts perhpa syou could clarify?
Are you implying correlation = causation without giving a mechanism for the causation that can also be backed up by facts?
I am stating facts – we can debate them if you wish and then we can debate what they mean
it would seem that if i say C02 is a greenhouse gas and it is increasing then I would also be giving a mechanism that caused increased temperature change - ie more of the grren house gas
But we can't just blame the media. e.g. the early IPCC report statement on glacier melt in the Himalaya.
I agree any innacuracy or error is not good nor is it enough to consider AGW to be false.
Consiodering sceptics have poured over the thousands of claims within the report they have found very little that was factuall innacurate and wher ethey have it hs been about the impact [ which we all agree is uncertain and hard to define] rather thn ait being about any critical argument
So whioch of these is wrong?
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased
Only 3 is even "worthy " of debate
LOL at the personal responses on here .... on the one hand rational discourse on the other wound up hyperbole whilst trying to say the other side are wound up and overstaing their case..... its like a modern day religious thread but with actual facts if any of you cared to say anything about them 🙄
Can i predict complete ignorance of fcats related to points 1-3 and more of the same for a few more pages.
I scraped a first class science degree with minors in the philosophy of science
Did they have "word-counts" then ? 😉
😆
Slow day in the office, really slow but super reply genuine LOL for that ....now folk think i am mental in the real world and on the internet 😳
How have you measured this?
I haven't. Some clever blokes did and told me 😀
I was quoting from the [url= http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf ]Royal Society's Climate change: a summary of the science (PDF)[/url] - nice doc that does cover some of the scepticism and "what we don't know" stuff too.
The IPCC 4th Assessment offers more details on how global average temperature is reached, the summary in this FAQ is particularly useful (for a layman like me):
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1.html
The climate change lobby do suffer from the problem of too much information/confusion, which makes it hard put their side of the debate across effectively in the face of the skeptic brigade who only deal in black and white: If we're not underwater, baking in 50 degree heat, battered by endless Typhoons/Hurricanes, then climate change doesn't exist.
Climate change is happening, but how extreme will it be? This is where the skeptic brigade wade in with absolutes, if it's not extreme NOW, then it's not happening. Of course they belong to groups with most to lose and finance political parties the world over.
I'd rather head this one off at the pass, so to speak, as a precaution, rather than the do the usual Human thing of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
[img] 
[/img]
I think a lot of resistance to the idea of MMGW came from hardcore greens insisting that the only solution is a regression to a pre-industrial society.
Turns out that while certain famous NGOs run around touting subsistence farming and smallholding as the only future we can have, a lot of clever people are building the clean technologies that will push us onwards anyway.
I still have half an inkling that climatology is a bunch of half-arsed 'models' (or 'spreadsheets') and inappropriately used statistical techniques. That said, seeing as this is a question, essentially, of fossil fuel use there are already so many reasons to quit fossil fuels that global warming is just one more, and not the biggest either.
The great thing is we have already invented the technologies we need to replace them - we just need to start building the stuff.
this it is what scpetics do
So imagine I was a sceptic (an assumption on your part, the only point I was making is that the message is presented badly), do you think you've convinced me or anyone else by reasoned argument and pertinent facts? Or have you just demonstrated my point for me? 8)
We still have a hosepipe ban here, if that helps.
IHN mentioned Dr Hans Zarkov. I wondered if he were one of the 49 NASA scientists*... he wasn't. I looked further, and now I'm amused. Thanks IHN.
*Before someone else quotes them--
Oh, and I'm happy to live well above current sea level, thanks.
Each decade since the 1970's has been warmer than the previous one
The earth is 4.5 billion years old (or is that the Universe? either way, it's flipping old)
I think we should be careful about placing too much emphasis on having written down the temperature for a piffling 3 decades
It's raining. It rains every June, more often than not it rains so much in June that somewhere floods, yet it still comes as a complete surprise to the nation each year.
It's raining. It rains every June, more often than not it rains so much in June that somewhere floods, yet it still comes as a complete surprise to the nation each year.
Very true. But we can't argue about that.
I think we should be careful about placing too much emphasis on having written down the temperature for a piffling 3 decades
Do you think climate scientists have not thought of that?
cheburashka - Member
It's raining. It rains every June, more often than not it rains so much in June that somewhere floods, yet it still comes as a complete surprise to the nation each year.
Not really relevant, since the real point is that this June was most likely the wettest on record.
The reason for it is an unusually persistent region of high pressure over Greenland (similar to what caused the coldest December on record 2 years ago). Why this weather pattern is seemingly more prevalent in the last few years is open for debate, but as usual that debate seems to degenerate into uniformed vitriolic arguments about global warming (which may or may not have anything to do with it).
I got bored of reading after the pretty pictures.
It's just a bit of pooh weather really.
It happens. September will be nice and sunny though.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old (or is that the Universe? either way, it's flipping old)I think we should be careful about placing too much emphasis on having written down the temperature for a piffling 3 decades
Undoubtedly true, it's a small sample, but you've got to start looking for some correlation somewhere.
I can give you a 2 million year old rock, which due to a force that is probably as old as the universe, will fall towards towards the ground at roughly 9.78 m/s²
How many times would you need to drop it onto your toes before you were convinced of that...? 😉
Undoubtedly true, it's a small sample, but you've got to start looking for some correlation somewhere.I can give you a 2 million year old rock, which due to a force that is probably as old as the universe, will fall towards towards the ground at roughly 9.78 m/s²
How many times would you need to drop it onto your toes before you were convinced of that...?
It wouldn't on the Moon 😉
Somewhat facile point methinks. Weather is a variable and in the point you are trying to illustrate, gravity on Earth is much more constant.
I tend to agree with joao3v16 FWIW, we have no historical data of substance to be able to correlate anything, let alone scientific fact or statements to pertain to fact.
The Thames would regularly freeze enough to support winter markets during the 19th century. We can look at micro trends but have no base upon which to determine both floor or ceiling.
It was Neil Armstrong who once said that when he viewed the Earth from the orbiting Lunar capsule, he recognised that our planet was like his space craft and for the astronauts to survive, they had to know exactly which buttons to press to keep the life support systems functioning. He reasoned that the earth was no different... Better start looking for those buttons 😀
We have temperature data for a lot longer than three decades. Inferred from other things.
Weather is a variable and in the point you are trying to illustrate, gravity on Earth is much more constant.
And you know this because you have historical records or gravity going back millions of years? 😀
The point I was trying to make (and yes it is a bit facile) is that just because something is really old and you only have a very small sample, doesn't necessarily prevent you from examining current behaviour and trying to find correlations.
As grips says, we do have temperature data stretching back a lot further than 30 years (that 19th century cold snap for instance), but obviously these records have increasing uncertainty the further back they go and will only ever be a tiny sample compared to the 4.5 billion years that Earth has been spinning.
But can we really afford to wait a million years to get a decent sample size?
Or should we "start looking for those buttons" now?
Genuine question - assuming that climate change is occuring - does human activity itself make the climate change, or is there some sort of balancing act going on in the atmosphere (which partially or totally cancels out our effects) which makes the climate change?
Is this too simplistic or am I mixing up cause and effect here? I know the end result is the same, but I'm just curious!
Genuine question - assuming that climate change is occuring - does human activity itself make the climate change, or is there some sort of balancing act going on in the atmosphere (which partially or totally cancels out our effects) which makes the climate change?Is this too simplistic or am I mixing up cause and effect here? I know the end result is the same, but I'm just curious!
Of course climate change is happening, just as it has for the last billion years or so. While humans are contributing in some way or other, and destroying vast tracts of forest that would otherwise contain CO2 certainly ain't helping, nobody yet has managed to work out the mechanism that causes general global cooling and heating.
Let's face it, humans didn't cause the last five known ice ages or the warming that ended them. The most likely candidate, that seems to make most sense, is variations in solar output; after all, Sol [i]is[/i] a known variable star.
A nice idea Count but...
Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century......While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years – there is even evidence of a detectable decline – and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures.
-- From "Climate Change Controversies: a simple guide",
I have decided to restrict my input to .jpgs.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Ah damn it, that's a .png.
Have a look at CO2 levels for the last 500 million years.
We have [url= http://www.universcience.fr/climobs/figure/constat_composition-atmosphere_concentration-co2-1958-2011/ ]direct measurements[/url] for the last 50 years that show a rise from 317 to 391 ppm. That takes us above the range for the pleistocene as derived from ice cores. You have to go back to before man to find such levels.
On most of the graphs I've seen you have to go back about 20 or 30 million years to find over 400 ppm. The midddle of the Tertiary. It was a lot warmer then with an average global temperature of around 20°C rather than the 12°C we currently enjoy. Warmer doesn't mean nicer. Look at Venus. More energy in the atmosphere means more weather. Enjoy it, you're contributing to it (unless you're a hermit in a cave).
Bit wet this morning init .
monsoon season here 'innit
I heard someone on the TV state that it's been the relatively stable climate over the past few thousand years that has allowed civilisation to develope and the global population to dramatically increase. If a stable climate is NOT the normal state then it looks like humanity is in for an awful lot of hardship over the long term future now there's so many of us to provide for.
I had to wring out my hair when I got into work..
And it's still raining..
Yuk.
