1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Climate change, the facts, the theory

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Judgeneo, May 30, 2010.

  1. shroomz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 18, 2010

    Posts: 1,986

    Location: Bristol, UK

    Yes there is, but that's not in itself unusual, if you look at the trends for previous years that happens too. The important point is the trend for every month especially Oct - Dec year-on-year, which shows a significant decrease this year on previous years and a steady downward trend over the years. Look at the graph comparing the trendlines rather than horizontally
     
  2. tracertong

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 25, 2007

    Posts: 1,029

    As the old saying goes it's easier to fool someone than convince them they haven't been fooled. Clinton fans and climate change believers take note.
     
  3. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    Definitely interesting times ahead conspiracy theorists or not - we are just about entering a phase where many of the (natural) things that impact on the climate switch to other patterns or oscillation flip it will be fascinating to see what the impact is.
     
  4. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    Ironic post of the year. Monckton is a complete charlatan. He's had no scientific training (he's a journalist, he read Classics at Cambridge) and has a history of misrepresenting scientists (a polite way of saying he makes thing up and is a liar).

    From the skepticalscience link I shared, here's page one of some of the times he's misrepresented scientists and they wrote back to complain. More in the link earlier.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,920

    So scientific literature contradicts the science of greenhouse gases, its real, its warming our oceans and lower atmosphere (troposphere) whist cooler the upper (stratosphere). The issue lies in solutions to the issue, heavy carbon lifestyles of buying lots of stuff, meat heavy diets, travelling lots etc is the main issue and technology can solve the issue in the short term (next 30-40) years so unless people consider changes to their lives 2C is unavoidable and 3-4C more than likely.

    Humans presently live in a lot of places where sea level rise, melting glaciers and the rest will make it harder to live there and displace them. Displacement means refugees and more than likely it means trouble far worse than syria has been and that has been bad enough.
     
  6. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    It will always come down to money and putting issues off so that future generations deal with them :s there is a lot we could be doing right now just in terms of the types and features of housing built from now on.
     
  7. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 16,435

    Ehh, no.

    If we hit an event like the methapocalypse from Siberia/Ice in general, then this small time ******** will do nothing.

    We'd need to plunge the entire production value of labor into de-acidifying and de-carbonizing the ecosystem.
     
  8. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    If... ah the good old, but flawed, little ice age extrapolation - consensus science has a lot to answer for. The reality is likely to pan out a bit different and probably a lot more manageable - if we got on it now.
     
  9. muon

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 8, 2006

    Posts: 17,228

    Location: London

    Wow just reading through some of the comments about how statiatics can be manipulated. It's simply an attempt to discredit the 90% of evidence that the greenhouse effrct is true.

    Statistics is why many of the scientific advances you see today are true.

    Maybe we should have said, scientists manipulate data for the null and against and just stopped advancing as we supposedly don't know anything.

    I guess it works. Similar to just labelling everything as fake news. Don't believe anything! Especially when you know otherwise you are wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2017
  10. muon

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 8, 2006

    Posts: 17,228

    Location: London

    Nice. Hide the really steep bit at the end through scaling.

    May as well go back to when the earth was molten rock and hide it even more.
     
  11. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    Personally I'm just not a fan of the way the data is used - images of ice regression for instance hand picked those that showed a linear recession skipping over those in the data set that showed a slightly different story - not that it changes that overall there are concerning trends emerging but the real story opens up a lot more potential ways to deal with it.

    Same with glacial recession as per the image I posted before - the videos show what appears to be an accelerating linear recession - the real data shows a very different picture with only an accelerating trend in the last few years.

    Same with the way this data is presented - often in presentations and even in predictions the pink line is used:

    [​IMG]

    When in actual fact its closer to the green line (doesn't actually fit the green line as its a more complex curve) which gives us much more time to potentially deal with things than is often banded about - its no less concerning but the hysteria is threatening to rule out things we could and should be doing here and now to protect our future.

    When I can find it I will post an image I posted awhile ago that shows the concerning acceleration in the period since 2000 in a much better and more realistic light than the one that is often used which extrapolates out of 1860 or whatever it is.

    EDIT: Can see what I'm talking about here WORLD WEATHER THREAD - in no way am I trying to gloss over what is happening in the data since ~2000 but the actual story is very different to what they try to portray in the video. I took a screen grab and filled in with actual information from that area over the years instead of just picking the year when coverage was at max as the starting point and trying to portray it as a linear regression from there.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2017
  12. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 16,435

    We don't have "much more time", if we hit soil carbon limits or one of the numerous Methane explosive theories (much more temporary, but still effects things), climate science has come a long way... but we still don't know enough to just assume it's hunkydory.
     
  13. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    Relatively speaking we have much more time - things are certainly not hunkydory - I can see that better than most. But we have more of a chance to deal with things if we get on it here and now than some parties for some reason want us to believe.

    It is worth looking a bit deeper at some of the authors behind the consensus studies on global climate change - something that has been swept under the rug is what happened with their predictions for solar cycle 24 :s where they used consensus science to brow beat and discredit a small number of people who were predicting a different model - but the small number of people turned out to be correct.


    EDIT: Though I guess you could argue from the perspective that the upheaval and cost involved of what we need to start doing right now are very unlikely to be accepted or happen and hence write it off and skip to the next bit that seems likely to happen if we don't :|
     
  14. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    Just reflecting on this XKCD again, it's so effective:

    https://xkcd.com/1732/

    2 degrees of warming doesn't sound like much, but it's the difference between modern society and 10,500 BC - the end of the Stone Age, before the invention of farming, metalwork, and writing, when mammoths and sabre-toothed cats still roamed, and Britain still had a land bridge to mainland Europe because the sea level was so much lower.

    At current rates we'll smash through that in only a few generations.
     
  15. Trig

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,457

    Location: Leicestershire

    The way I see it is the planet has been going through cycles and will continue to do so long after we are gone..

    Lets looks at the facts..

    The Sun goes through periods where it gives off more or less heat, it is not constant.
    Therefor it is unlikely that any planetoid that orbits the Sun will have a constant temperature.

    The Earth does not orbit the Sun on the same course, sometimes it is closer, some times it is further away.
    Therefor it is unlikely that the Earth will have a constant temperature.

    The Earth "wobbles" on its axis.
    Therefor it is unlikely that the Earth will have a constant temperature.

    There is evidence that there have at least 5 ice ages, this supports the Earth going through warm/cold cycles.
    These Ice Ages predate humans burning fossil fuels in large enough quantity to make any decent difference to Earths climate.


    However...

    While Climate Change is a real thing, the human race will never be able to stop, or reverse it, to think we can is either arrogance or stupidity, given my experience with humans as a race, its hard to say exactly which..

    We should however be making more of an effort when it comes to renewable energies, recycling, clean living and so on, it is entirely possible that we will be the cause of our own demise, be it pollution or nuclear destruction, however, the planet will recover and continue to be here long long after we have gone..

    The problem is greed, look at patents into battery technology that the petrochemical companies bought up to stop things being improved and moved forwards, jsut to keep certain people and companies bank rolled..

    IMHO any technology that will improve the state of the planet and is for the good of the human race should not be patented and should be free for people to take as far as they can for the good of us all.
     
  16. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    You're not wrong about most of that, but the following is misleading and incorrect.

    The Earth indeed has cycles on the scale of thousands of years. You're wrong though to mix up anthropogenic climate change with these 'natural' cycles. (Also this is a logical fallacy called 'appeal to nature'.)

    Look at that chart I posted in the very last post before yours. The 'natural' change in the climate is a long slow wiggle compared to the massive tick we've measured in the last 100 years.

    It's almost certain that the human race is causing this utterly unnatural climatic shock, and if we don't want to rapidly adjust our entire way of living worldwide then we must take action against it. As you say the planet will be fine, it's the life on it (including humans) that are in trouble if we do nothing.

    Final point, you're right that humanity would have a hard time fighting the long term trends (terraforming other planets e.g. Mars suffers the same problem). We are however absolutely able to alter our own effects - it's our activities that are causing the rapid changes and it's our activity that can stop it.
     
  17. Trig

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,457

    Location: Leicestershire

    Ok, so let me re-word that, we can reduce our impact on the planet, and as a whole, perhaps at some point become essentially inert as far as the planet goes, but we will never be able to stop climate change, and nor can we reverse it.
     
  18. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    One caveat to that - there are many factors, some longer terms, some a bit shorter, that have converged at points in their oscillation/cycle, etc. that has never happened in recorded history before, not all of them necessarily in states that produce the most extreme warming but nearly all in states that either tend towards warmer/more active climate or don't hinder it and sometimes these combinations of factors, which on their own have extremely slow effects, can have an effect "bigger than the sum of their parts" when combined. A number of those that are shorter cycles like solar cycles will change away or flip between now and ~2030 so will be interesting to see what happens.
     
  19. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 2, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    I've never seen evidence of that. The famous Fig. SPM.3 from the latest IPCC report puts natural forcings and natural internal variability at 0 (plus/minus).

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 60,224

    I've not looked at that source in detail but as per my link to the weather thread above often when I've dug into the data found it has been distorted or skewed in representation a common one being running simulations of factors in isolation against a climate model, finding the results as negligible and grouping the lot under negligible(s) without representing the effects of those factors interacting. Sometimes the deficiency is noted in footnotes without any change to the represented data. Another one is superimposing anthropogenic factors over the top masking natural patterns in the data to extend the apparent impact of man made influences as represented.

    For clarity I have no agenda here, don't deny climate change or the cause for concern for what is happening to our climate - it won't be long before some aspects will be undeniable one way or another. I do however have the opinion that it is potentially a lot less cut and dried how it will unfold and the make up of factors behind it than the popular view and that we likely can make much more difference if we get on and start doing some things differently right now.