Global Warming

[tigersnake]

If its staring us in the face, why is there so much conjecture?

there isn't. See my earlier Collingwood v Waubra example. I don't really blame people for thinking there is a lot of conjecture though. As I also said earlier, powerful interests are muddying the waters, for perfectly rational reasons. (By rational here I mean short-term economic gain which discounts the environment)

 

[Liverpool]

That's a very long and convoluted way of saying that the body of scientific evidence strongly supports the AGW theory.

There is also scientific evidence saying otherwise.
What you are trying to say is "my science is better than your science" and for every article, journal, or manuscript posted declaring that they are right because they have this fact or that fact...there is someone from the rival camp ready to debunk it with another set of statistics and data.
There is no "one science" giving a definitive answer...what we have are various scientists with expertise in certain areas with their own theories based on their research.
Some of these scientists also have vested interests.

One is real, one is a collage. Now tell me how the change in image changes the context or meaning of the Science story.
Because as with any politically debated issue, facts pass through a filter of argument/PR/FUD and this occurs on both sides of any debate. However, the fact that because Science Magazine used a photoshopped image of a polar bear in 2005 does not invalidate science generally or reality specifically.

Ooooh...a "collage" :spin
It was a fake and doctored picture to try and pull on the emotional heartstrings of the public.
The fake picture gave the impression that the bear was stuck on this small piece of ice, a long way from land, and it was doomed.
After they were caught and decided to post a real photo in its place, well, who is to say that this piece of ice is only 50m away from land even anyway?
My point is that why do it in the first place???
If the science is so accurate and on the money...why stoop and go for cheap tricks and dramatic effects to try and win over people?
It is this sort of stuff Antman that does change the context of the story because if they are so willing to use emotion and gimmicks to get people to believe them, what does it say about their 'science'? Are the data and maths they are perpetuating as true also fake and a gimmick? or just more lies to convert the naive?

 

[Azza]

If its staring us in the face, why is there so much conjecture?

Because of the massive economic impact if it's accepted and the world decides to make a genuine attempt to reduce emissions.

There have been natural cycles that have affected the earth for millenia, and yes, while these can be predicted somewhat, there are also other natural phenomena that can also change the climate.
For example, sunspots and the intensity of the sun's radiation (2012 has already seen one of the biggest solar flares hit earth)
Even events such as Krakatoa in the 1800s caused the planet's temperature to fall 1.2 degrees the following year.
The Japan earthquake/tsunami shifted the earth's axis 4-inches.
The Icelandic volcano in 2010 emitted an amount of CO2 in a day which placed it approximately in the top-50 emitters over the course of the year in Europe, rivalling Austria, Ireland, and Portugal.

Surely just this handful of natural events alone would have an affect on the planet's climate???

None of those (or any other event) explains the consistent increase in temperature since the industrial revolution. That increase is way out of whack with the background 'noise' generated by the types of events you mentioned.

I'm not sure I disagree with you about the carbon tax, but people who don't want action on anthropogenic climate change are on weak ground when questioning the science.

I think our federal government is too weak and inept to act appropriately, and our general polity (economy, government by federation, education sector) and media are also too weak.

 

[Liverpool]

there isn't. See my earlier Collingwood v Waubra example. I don't really blame people for thinking there is a lot of conjecture though. As I also said earlier, powerful interests are muddying the waters, for perfectly rational reasons. (By rational here I mean short-term economic gain which discounts the environment)

Tigersnake,

Thats true...there are people muddying the waters, but you do not go far enough.
There are vested interests on BOTH sides, not only the so-called deniers/sceptics group.
Greenpeace is also one group that has pushed the boundaries when it comes to the truth as well....its not just oil companies and right-wingers

 

[poppa x]

I see no-one's seen fit to comment on my video a couple of pages back.
This video basically explains that many of the scientists 35+ years ago who were predicting the coming of an ice age have now chnaged their tune and promoting global warming.
I guess I'm the only one old enough to remember buying extra blankets to avoid freezing to death. :rofl

You may question the motives or the facts of the video, but the central question remains "how does a world wide group of qualified climatologists predict an ice age then just 35 short years later say "we got it wrong and now we say the ice will all melt and world temperatures will rise and ocean levels significantly increase"?

Could it be that the predictions of climate scientists are no more accurate than Economists?
Or perhaps the views of the more cautious climate scientists are not being heard in the mad rush for headlines and Grant Money.

 

[Liverpool]

I see no-one's seen fit to comment on my video a couple of pages back.
This video basically explains that many of the scientists 35+ years ago who were predicting the coming of an ice age have now chnaged their tune and promoting global warming.
I guess I'm the only one old enough to remember buying extra blankets to avoid freezing to death. :rofl

You may question the motives or the facts of the video, but the central question remains "how does a world wide group of qualified climatologists predict an ice age then just 35 short years later say "we got it wrong and now we say the ice will all melt and world temperatures will rise and ocean levels significantly increase"?

Could it be that the predictions of climate scientists are no more accurate than Economists?
Or perhaps the views of the more cautious climate scientists are not being heard in the mad rush for headlines and Grant Money.

:clap :fing32

 

[Disco08]

 

[tigersnake]

good post duck. AGW as an idea began to emerge in the 40s and 50s and has gathered momentum ever since. It was fairly dominant by the 70s, and dominant by the 80s.

 

[tigersnake]

Or perhaps the views of the more cautious climate scientists are not being heard in the mad rush for headlines and Grant Money.

Horseshit I'm afraid pop. The fact is the scientific game is brutally competitive, as it should be. Cream rises to the top.

 

[Azza]

I see no-one's seen fit to comment on my video a couple of pages back.
This video basically explains that many of the scientists 35+ years ago who were predicting the coming of an ice age have now chnaged their tune and promoting global warming.
I guess I'm the only one old enough to remember buying extra blankets to avoid freezing to death. :rofl

You may question the motives or the facts of the video, but the central question remains "how does a world wide group of qualified climatologists predict an ice age then just 35 short years later say "we got it wrong and now we say the ice will all melt and world temperatures will rise and ocean levels significantly increase"?

Could it be that the predictions of climate scientists are no more accurate than Economists?
Or perhaps the views of the more cautious climate scientists are not being heard in the mad rush for headlines and Grant Money.

35 short years? 35 years of massive climate data collection and historical analysis that was in it's absolute infancy in the 70s. 35 years added to a record of global warming that was only 100 years or so old at the time. That's another 33% of record to draw trends from. 35 years of exponential growth in computing power. Just how powerful were those computations that were quoted - probably generated on the equivalent of a laptop now (if that).

And where exactly are the quotes in the scientific literature backing all that conjecture in the populist press?

As to the ice age business. Orbital forcing indicates that the next cycle will be a descent into a glacial period, and it's about due 'now'. But that 'now' is relative, and could mean in a thousand years. Cooling leading into glacial period is also very slow.

And Poppa, you just can't separate the origin of a video like that from it's message. Clearly it has an agenda, and it's easy to spin information in any way you want. The science itself needs to be seen to be able to judge the message, not the spin.

 

[Liverpool]

it's easy to spin information in any way you want. The science itself needs to be seen to be able to judge the message, not the spin.

Couldn't have said this better myself mate

Manhattan swamped by the Hudson....photoshopped polar bear pics...dodgy IPCC reports.......exactly, lets see the science instead of the dramatic spin and exaggerations.

 

[Azza]

Couldn't have said this better myself mate

Manhattan swamped by the Hudson....photoshopped polar bear pics...dodgy IPCC reports.......exactly, lets see the science instead of the dramatic spin and exaggerations.

You haven't answered 2 of my questions Livers -

Which specific natural events account for the increase in global temperature since the industrial revolution? Surely these are listed somewhere in all the anti-AGW literature?

If it just comes down to 'we don't know, but it can't be emissions, there's not enough', how many years do we keep looking for natural causes before we decide to accept AGW?

 

[Liverpool]

You haven't answered 2 of my questions Livers -

Which specific natural events account for the increase in global temperature since the industrial revolution? Surely these are listed somewhere in all the anti-AGW literature?

If it just comes down to 'we don't know, but it can't be emissions, there's not enough', how many years do we keep looking for natural causes before we decide to accept AGW?

Firstly, "science" states that they can only get any accurate readings of the earth's temperature since 1850, so anything before 1850 is not as reliable, however:

as you can see there are still fluctuations over the last 1000 years with very few of them related to any type of man-made pollutant.

You asked for "natural events"...and I have named a handful already....events that have changed the axis of the planet, events that have changed the temperature of the planet, and events that blast the earth with sun radiation.
All can cause long-term affects to the climate.
They aren't "background noise" as you decided to label them...they are sudden cataclysmic events that have caused long term changes.

You can't douse the planet in the biggest solar flares ever recorded, have an earthquake which changes the axis of the planet, have a volcano that changes the temperature of the planet by more than 1 degree a year later, and tell me that this is only 'background noise'.

Only a small read but maybe will give you an idea of what I'm on about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

And these are only the major events that have happened in the last 150 years or so...what about the last 500 years...the last 1000 years....and other major events that have not been scientifically recorded so we don't know what this has done to the planet and its related climate.

Its why I said it was "arrogant" for people to jump to a conclusion based of the opinions/views of some scientists that it is man-made pollutants that are causing global warming.
Mother Nature is far more powerful and destructive.

 

[Azza]

You asked for "natural events"...and I have named a handful already....events that have changed the axis of the planet, events that have changed the temperature of the planet, and events that blast the earth with sun radiation.
All can cause long-term affects to the climate.
They aren't "background noise" as you decided to label them...they are sudden cataclysmic events that have caused long term changes.

I said 'specific events' not a general listing of events that undeniably affect climate. AGW theorists have one - greenhouse gas emission increases that fit with the warming trend. The ones you mention ARE noise relative to the warming trend because they don't correlate with it. Again, which specific ones apply - events and dates please.

 

[bullus_hit]

I think all you guys should listen to Gina Rinehart, a woman who has great respect for climate science and someone who is acting for the greater good of mankind.

 

[Sintiger]

I think all you guys should listen to Gina Rinehart, a woman who has great respect for climate science and someone who is acting for the greater good of mankind.

Do I have to look at her as well?

 

[craig]

Anyone who thinks earth quakes are related to so called man made climate change is an imbecile

 

[Liverpool]

I said 'specific events' not a general listing of events that undeniably affect climate. AGW theorists have one - greenhouse gas emission increases that fit with the warming trend. The ones you mention ARE noise relative to the warming trend because they don't correlate with it. Again, which specific ones apply - events and dates please.

If they undeniably affect the climate, which you admit to....then surely that has a domino effect on the planet, regarding future rainfalls, droughts, snowfalls and therefore water levels, etc.

There is no natural "specific event" that causes global warming, as its a multitude of phenomena that occurs that leads to global warming and I have given a handful of examples of these already.

 

[AngryAnt]

There is also scientific evidence saying otherwise.

Point me to this scientific evidence.

What you are trying to say is "my science is better than your science" and for every article, journal, or manuscript posted declaring that they are right because they have this fact or that fact...there is someone from the rival camp ready to debunk it with another set of statistics and data.

Well yes, but the rival camp is the size of a 4 man canvas tent pitched outside Geneva, and is largely populated by crackpots or those funded by big oil "think-tanks", speaking of "vested interests". But that's not important to you, as long as there is an "opposing view" then we can split it down the middle right? Then it's just a matter of opinion right?

Ooooh...a "collage" :spin
It was a fake and doctored picture to try and pull on the emotional heartstrings of the public.
The fake picture gave the impression that the bear was stuck on this small piece of ice, a long way from land, and it was doomed.

No, it was an editorial choice - and like most publications that rely on stock images, they selected it and published it. This is the way journalists and publishers work. And yes, they do make mistakes and publish corrections. No conspiracy required. The best regarded publications do make mistakes though - and the good ones publish corrections.

If the science is so accurate and on the money...why stoop and go for cheap tricks and dramatic effects to try and win over people?

See above. An editorial choice of a photograph in a magazine does not invalidate science. Spreading FUD doesn't invalidate science. What does invalidate a particular scientific theory or measurement is further scientific empirical evidence.

It is this sort of stuff Antman that does change the context of the story because if they are so willing to use emotion and gimmicks to get people to believe them, what does it say about their 'science'? Are the data and maths they are perpetuating as true also fake and a gimmick? or just more lies to convert the naive?

Or is it just the denialists spreading FUD? Does a typo invalidate a scientific paper? Does a photograph as an accompanying sidebar to a story in Science invalidate the content of the story? Is a photograph in Science from 2005 the only evidence you have of the massive AGW conspiracy that is conning the foolish and naive?

By the way, still waiting for you to condemn the $12 billion AUD in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. This is a distortion of the free market, results in higher taxes for all of us, and of course stifles innovation and development of more efficient industries and technologies.

 

[Azza]

If they undeniably affect the climate, which you admit to....then surely that has a domino effect on the planet, regarding future rainfalls, droughts, snowfalls and therefore water levels, etc.

There is no natural "specific event" that causes global warming, as its a multitude of phenomena that occurs that leads to global warming and I have given a handful of examples of these already.

Ok. We're in an interglacial period currently, and have been for 12000 years or so. During that time climate has been relatively stable. The significant peaks and troughs in global temperature during that time can be related to particular natural events, including volcanic eruptions. None of those peaks and troughs are as significant as the rise in temperature since 1900 or so. No natural event or cumulative series of events are known that might cause that warming. However, that trend coincides closely with increasing emissions since the industrial revolution.

You claim that a series of natural events accumulated to cause the rise. Which eruptions? Which solar flares? What positive feedback is occurring to cumulatively cause an increase in temperature? Why is this occurring now rather than at any time during the last 12000 years?