-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
poppa x said:
Yeah. Roy Morgan is the pollster who struggles the most, but I did say "if you accept the poll findings". :cutelaugh I guess this poll is sort of good if you are a climate change skeptic, given it shows skepticism is increasing.
A nice response to that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIi6WTkYcTs&feature=player_embeddedPanthera tigris FC said:
Giardiasis said:
I find it ironic that the author of your linked screed accuses the target of using a strawman argument and then proceeds to use a single set of data to discredit anthropogenic climate change.
I think it is important to dissect the two issues here. One, is the content of the emails, some of which is not flattering to the scientists involved. The second is the body of evidence, from numerous disciplines, that supports the occurrence of climate change and forms the basis of the scientific consensus on the issue. In all of the furor over 'climate-gate' none of the critics that I have heard have attacked the science beyond the weak strawmen-type attacks such as the one in your link above.
One of the powerful aspects of the scientific method is that it is combative by nature and therefore, despite the foibles of humans such as those that wrote these emails, it is extremely effective at unearthing accurate conclusions. If you want to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change you need to attack the data and/or conclusions drawn from that data, rather than character assassinations.
Giardiasis said:
I am so relieved you turned that rebuttal up Giardiasis - it saved me putting together the same argument so concisely and posting it here - that little production basically filleted the first one put up by Panthera. Did you watch the whole of the second one Panthera? Be honest, its not easy hearing the alternate argument is it. And it is getting stronger all the time..
I didn't watch the whole of the first one, it was far too excruciating.
Personally, this is my favourite. If you listen more than once it becomes quite catchy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
And before anyone takes a shot, i'll get in first - okay, maybe it tells a story about my intellect.
Does anyone know what percentage of the world's Co2 emissions are natural? I am sure it has been posted here before but I am a late comer (which is sometimes handy).
We, the people, are going to change the global climate - we are going to bring it back closer to 'normal'. I love it..line those pockets boys.
What about the opening film at CarbonHagen with the EARTHQUAKE? Or was it a Tsunami?? Poor little girl.. lol
Bunch of hypocrites spewed out that much carbon getting there - yet I 'm getting believers knocking on my door with mercury filled light-globes.
Merveille said:
Welcome to the discussion.
Of course I watched the whole rebuttal video. There was nothing new in it and you don't address my comments on it. Empty comments like "And it is getting stronger all the time.." don't really carry any weight as a throw away line.
At least you are up front in saying that you aren't intrested in the scientific consensus and have your preconceived conclusions set in stone.
Again, nothing new here. It mainly focusses on the 1998 temperature 'spike' without looking at the overall trend, nor the reasons for that spike.
Scientists have a good record of CO2 levels going back as far as 800,000 years from ice core data. So to answer your question, yes, we do know levels pre- and post-industrial revolution and the natural fluctuations over a long period of time.
Argument from incredulity. Never very convincing.
Read this for information on what we know about the effects of reduced emissions.
Haven't seen the opening film, so I can't comment - however I would ask if you are sure it wasn't related to rising sea levels? If you doubt this is occuring, just ask the residents of Kiribati.
As for "mercury-filled", I assume you are using some poetic license. The typical long life globe has 3-5mg of mercury, not exactly "filled".
Interesting news article that discusses a new journal article published in Nature.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627
Giardiasis said:
From the abstract of the actual letter published in Nature:
Overall, our results confirm the central role of declining pCO2[atm] in the development of the Antarctic ice sheet (in broad agreement with carbon cycle modelling) and help to constrain mechanisms and feedbacks associated with the Earth's biggest climate switch of the past 65 Myr.
I'm no geophysicist, but reading that whole abstract it seems clear that the authors openly acknowledge the impact of CO2 on the global temperature, which is somewhat at odds with the conclusions drawn by Prof. Asten in his column in The Australian.
I would also say that I agree with Tim Flannery's assessment that we still have much to learn about the climate.
However, it seems clear that the evidence is pointing towards an increase in CO2 emissions and an increase in global temperatures. The long term effects, the ability of the Earth's climate to buffer this effect, the point at which me may reaching 'tipping points' and the resulting impacts on humans are not certain.
In this case I would err on the side of caution, which also has the benefit of encouraging the development of more sustainable techologies.
However, it seems clear that the evidence is pointing towards an increase in CO2 emissions and an increase in global temperatures. The long term effects, the ability of the Earth's climate to buffer this effect, the point at which me may reaching 'tipping points' and the resulting impacts on humans are not certain.
In this case I would err on the side of caution, which also has the benefit of encouraging the development of more sustainable techologies.
Well they needed to do that for it to be publishedPanthera tigris FC said:
The other journal Asten mentions is rather more damning. The whole GW theory is based on a high positive feedback mechanism. Without it, the theory is kaput.
Giardiasis said:Well they needed to do that for it to be published
The other journal Asten mentions is rather more damning. The whole GW theory is based on a high positive feedback mechanism. Without it, the theory is kaput.
I was responding to your reference to the Nature letter.
As for the other paper, it was published in Energy and Environment, a known haven for climate change skeptics. Not that this invalidates their data, but I am more inclined to be cautious about drawing any conclusions without access (or the expertise!) to the data and to hear the response from the scientific community. The abstract doesn't provide much in this respect.
Your second point is disputable. The current models bring in the positive feedback mechanism, however greenhouse gases still cause GW in the absence of such mechanisms. It is the rate and impact that will be affected by the so-called "CO2 climate forcing" positive feeback effect. I would be interested to see how the data presented here measures up against other lines of evidence that do suggest a positive feeback effect. Publication in a more reputable journal would have made this easier to follow.
