Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:06 pm

Poll: Is Anthropogenic Climate Change real?
This poll is closed.
Yes
68.00%
17 68.00%
No
24.00%
6 24.00%
Undecided
8.00%
2 8.00%
Total 25 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anthropogenic Climate Change
#11
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
I think it is well established that animals produce CO2 and methane, (Some of us more than others) and that these gases deplete the ozone layer which causes a temperature increase. The planet has a means of compensating. Temperature increase causes an increase in plant growth, especially trees, plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen and ozone, the ozone layer is replenished and temperatures decline. Since we experienced a global cooling scare in the 1970's and the half cycle is about 30 years, we should be going into a cooling phase soon. If we don't I'll be worried. But I'll be more worried about deforestation than CO2 production.
Reply
#12
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm)corndog36 Wrote: I think it is well established that animals produce CO2 and methane, (Some of us more than others) and that these gases deplete the ozone layer which causes a temperature increase.

I don't think that's true. Small nitrogen-containing molecules and halogens can deplete the ozone layer, but not carbon dioxide or methane.
That's the reason that CFC's were banned, free-radical chlorine atoms in the upper atmosphere break down the trioxygen molecules.

(March 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm)corndog36 Wrote: The planet has a means of compensating. Temperature increase causes an increase in plant growth, especially trees,

I'm not too sure about that one either. I imagine it would cause a decrease in growth rates in at least some species. Can you point me to some evidence for this claim?

(March 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm)corndog36 Wrote: plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen and ozone, the ozone layer is replenished and temperatures decline.

Ozone is definitely not a product of photosynthesis.
Can you explain how the ozone layer being replinished would lead to a decrease in global temperature, because I'm not sure that that's true either.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Reply
#13
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 11, 2011 at 5:43 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(March 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm)corndog36 Wrote: I think it is well established that animals produce CO2 and methane, (Some of us more than others) and that these gases deplete the ozone layer which causes a temperature increase.

I don't think that's true. Small nitrogen-containing molecules and halogens can deplete the ozone layer, but not carbon dioxide or methane.
That's the reason that CFC's were banned, free-radical chlorine atoms in the upper atmosphere break down the trioxygen molecules.

(March 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm)corndog36 Wrote: The planet has a means of compensating. Temperature increase causes an increase in plant growth, especially trees,

I'm not too sure about that one either. I imagine it would cause a decrease in growth rates in at least some species. Can you point me to some evidence for this claim?

(March 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm)corndog36 Wrote: plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen and ozone, the ozone layer is replenished and temperatures decline.

Ozone is definitely not a product of photosynthesis.
Can you explain how the ozone layer being replenished would lead to a decrease in global temperature, because I'm sure that that's true either.

I will humbly defer to you on matters of chemistry. In hindsight it was foolish of me to try to regurgitate, from memory, things I was taught in high school more than 30 years ago. I'm quite clear on the approximate 60 year cycle bit though. The scientists who were attempting to counter the global cooling hysteria pointed out that we were nearing the end of a predictable 30 year cooling phase, and would soon be entering a 30 year warming phase. And the balance between flora and fauna was definitely instrumental in maintaining the natural cycle. Maybe I'll try to research those old arguments, (like I should have done before I opened my big yap, and stuck my foot in it.)
Reply
#14
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm)corndog36 Wrote: I think it is well established that animals produce CO2 and methane, (Some of us more than others) and that these gases deplete the ozone layer which causes a temperature increase. The planet has a means of compensating. Temperature increase causes an increase in plant growth, especially trees, plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen and ozone, the ozone layer is replenished and temperatures decline. Since we experienced a global cooling scare in the 1970's and the half cycle is about 30 years, we should be going into a cooling phase soon. If we don't I'll be worried. But I'll be more worried about deforestation than CO2 production.

Boldened for INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY.

How did Early Earth deal with massive amounts of oxygen in the air? It fucking changed it's climate completely, killing off massive amounts of life.

The Earth will "compensate" like any physical system - by going out of whack relative to what we want.

A casual look at the other planets and what went "wrong" with them shows that pretty planetary body Earth is rather hard to keep within bounds of "livable" even when the damn thing is perfectly unmolested (case in point - ice ages).

Now factor in several billion top-level consumer life forms and their industrial waste.
Reply
#15
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 11, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:
(March 11, 2011 at 3:45 pm)theVOID Wrote: Oh wow, thanks for pointing that out Welsh Cake, I guess the vast majority of climate scientists completely forgot about that /sarcasm
You're always welcome VOID. ^^ May I also point out your argumentum ad populum and that scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument while I'm at it?

It wasn't an argument from authority, it was a response to your rather pathetic little piece of showmanship, waving about the a picture of the sun as if the scientists completely forgot to account for it.

And no shit the consensus isn't a scientific argument, it's a near majority agreement amongst experts that the scientific argument is valid and based on the sum of out best data. It's more than reasonable for non-experts to believe the current consensus as tentatively true, unless you know of any defeating studies that haven't been refuted and aren't wildly speculative i'll continue to do so.

If you're willing to argue the evidence or present some you believe disproves then go ahead.

Quote:Inadequate - Earth is 4.54 billion years, we've only had instrumental temperature recording since 1880, that's not enough sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis, maybe you have different standards of evidence, but I don't find that to be particularly convincing.

There is a ton of evidence, one being satellite data that shows progressively less energy escaping the atmosphere than is entering which is, again, more closely correlated with increasing C02 emissions than any single other factor contained in the data, INCLUDING solar activity.

EIA Wrote:Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1119.html

[Image: Climate_Change_Attribution.png]

Notice the strongest correlation? No other factors are even slightly as indicative.

And data showing that solar irradiance (The total amount of energy from the sun reaching the earth's surface) is inversely correlated...

[Image: solar-irradiance-1975-2009.jpg]
[Image: AnthropogenicCO2MeansGlobalWarming.jpg]

Again, no other factors have any where near as strong of a correlation as increased C02 emissions.

Quote:Except I'm not a conspiracist. Global warming provided the excuse needed for reducing the UK's dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power. If you kindly stop being presumptuous for just a minute a brief search into modern history and politics will reveal that bitch Margaret Thatcher and what her party did to the coal industry. Where I live, the south Wales valleys is a quite literally a "dump" because of her. We live on handouts from the European Union for fucks sake.

That's got nothing to with the data. If you have evidence for another factor being more closely tied to increased average temperatures then feel free to provide it, otherwise while I'm sorry for your situation, It's plainly not relevant.

You think you can get over your biases for long enough to argue the evidence?
.
Reply
#16
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Yes, it is.

Unequivocal.
Reply
#17
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 11, 2011 at 10:27 am)DiRNiS Wrote: Climate change is real, and obvious. It's going to happen 100%, no matter what. No matter if humans were wiped out of existence tomorrow, it's going to happen.

The Earth's climate comes in cycles. At the moment, we're in a period of natural warming. Whether or not man is influencing it whether it be by a tiny bit or a large amount or none at all, IS STILL DISPUTED. And that's the crux of it. Nobody really knows how much is natural climate change, and how much is anthropogenic.

I agree like this..Sagan predicted it back in the 80's as well with the CFC's
Reply
#18
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 11, 2011 at 5:19 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: In science, statistics ARE facts, or at least as close to them as you will ever get.
Ever heard of the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"? Statistics can be manipulated to emphasize any correlation between variables. You cannot argue within science and statistics that one causes the other, you're essentially making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy by claiming these events must have a cause and effect relationship without going for further investigation first.


Quote:As for the sun dictating weather, sure the sun dictates the energy flux the earth receives, but it has no control whatsoever over the earth's energy output.
The Sun is already halfway through its main-sequence stage, its gradually becoming more and more luminous. This is already explained in stellar evolution, its surface temperature is slowly rising in line with simulated computer models. This increase in solar temperatures means in another billion years the surface of the Earth will be too hot for liquid water to exist, all terrestrial life will end, long before our Sun ever becomes a Red Giant.


Quote:When it comes to the basic science of AGW, there's really nothing you can argue against.
Science thrives on skepticism, on open-mindedness, and searching for new ways of critical thinking, science stagnates in our convictions that it's infallible. The arseholes in Climategate responded to critics of global warming theory that their skepticism wasn't "legitimate", and of course we all know about their infamous email controversy back in Nov '09.


(March 12, 2011 at 12:15 am)theVOID Wrote: It wasn't an argument from authority, it was a response to your rather pathetic little piece of showmanship, waving about the a picture of the sun as if the scientists completely forgot to account for it.
You missed the point again, they didn't forget to account for it, they opted instead to *completely ignore it* along with volcanic activity and major eruptions.


Quote:There is a ton of evidence, one being satellite data that shows progressively less energy escaping the atmosphere than is entering which is, again, more closely correlated with increasing C02 emissions than any single other factor contained in the data, INCLUDING solar activity.
Didn't I just tell you that that was still woefully inadequate to determine one way or the other about what long-term cyclic patterns our climate is currently going through? Even with the data there are present-day anomalies in the Sun's behavior that still need to be explained.


Quote:[Image: Climate_Change_Attribution.png]

Notice the strongest correlation? No other factors are even slightly as indicative.
Which brillantly informative source did you get that accurate graph from? The IPCC?

It carries on well into the 90s yet doesn't even take into account the Mt. Pinatubo 1991 eruption, which released 20 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere; cooling Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius, despite an ongoing El Nino event. No where on the model do I see see that represented.


Quote:Again, no other factors have any where near as strong of a correlation as increased C02 emissions.
You also haven't heard of the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"?


Quote:That's got nothing to with the data.
Actually, it does. The industry, steam locomotives and coal mines in Wales are all long gone, yet they argue CO2 emissions have never been higher, and we need legislation to cut them, please explain that to me.

Quote:You think you can get over your biases for long enough to argue the evidence?
If you give me a massive government grant I think we can arrange something. Big Grin
Reply
#19
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 12, 2011 at 2:41 am)Welsh cake Wrote:
(March 12, 2011 at 12:15 am)theVOID Wrote: It wasn't an argument from authority, it was a response to your rather pathetic little piece of showmanship, waving about the a picture of the sun as if the scientists completely forgot to account for it.
You missed the point again, they didn't forget to account for it, they opted instead to *completely ignore it* along with volcanic activity and major eruptions.

That is complete bullshit, almost every single meta-analysis on the issue has measurements for solar activity in a variety of forms as well as the earths current aphelion/perihelion and eccentricities. The hypotheses that the sun was responsible for the increase in average global temperatures was the first to be refuted - It simply does not account for the difference.

Quote:Didn't I just tell you that that was still woefully inadequate to determine one way or the other about what long-term cyclic patterns our climate is currently going through? Even with the data there are present-day anomalies in the Sun's behavior that still need to be explained.

You asserted it, but your argument is full of shit, it amounts to nothing more than "bu...bu..but there might be something going on in the sun!" Show me the data! Oh, wait, it doesn't fucking exist.

We can EASILY measure the energy coming from the sun into the planet, we do so constantly around the clock from dozens of monitoring stations around the world, the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere shows an inverse correlation with current warming patterns. We can also measure the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere as well as the specific wavelengths that are being blocked and, low and behold, the wavelength of radiation being released in progressively lesser amounts is exactly the wavelengths absorbed by carbon gasses.

Until some data emerges to show that some other phenomenon better explains the otherwise unaccounted for progressive increase in average global temperatures then it still remains the case that increased carbon in the atmosphere is by far the strongest correlation and is therefore the best explanation given the entirety of available data, that makes it a tentative conclusion and the only one that is epistemically justified. Your belief that some unknown phenomenon is responsible is completely unjustified.

Quote:You also haven't heard of the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"?

Are you fucking shitting me? Do you not understand that the strongest correlation is the most likely cause and is thus the cause that we are justified in believing to be true? C02 emissions are EASILY the strongest correlation, thus they are by far the most likely cause.

This is fucking scientific method 101...

Quote:Actually, it does. The industry, steam locomotives and coal mines in Wales are all long gone, yet they argue CO2 emissions have never been higher, and we need legislation to cut them, please explain that to me.

Because Wales accounts for FUCK ALL of the earth's emissions. Are you now denying that C02 emissions are increasing? You need to go and look at the most rudimentary data if you believe that is the case!

You absolutely wreak of biases right now.

Quote:If you give me a massive government grant I think we can arrange something. Big Grin

More biases, great! Your financial situation in Wales has absolutely nothing to do with the data.
.
Reply
#20
RE: Anthropogenic Climate Change
(March 12, 2011 at 2:41 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Ever heard of the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"? Statistics can be manipulated to emphasize any correlation between variables. You cannot argue within science and statistics that one causes the other, you're essentially making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy by claiming these events must have a cause and effect relationship without going for further investigation first.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being completely disingenuous by deliberately misinterpreting what I said to score cheap points.

My point was, that there is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. All you can say is how likely something is to be true in probabilistic terms given the sum of the available data.

Quote:Statistics can be manipulated to emphasize any correlation between variables.

The only way you can manipulate statistics is by cherry-picking the data. That's known in science as research fraud. And it can be tested for using forensic statistics considering things such as Benford's Law.
If you have any evidence that these techniques have been applied to demonstrate that any of the data in support of the AGW theory has been manipulated in this way, please present that evidence.

(March 12, 2011 at 2:41 am)Welsh cake Wrote:
Quote:As for the sun dictating weather, sure the sun dictates the energy flux the earth receives, but it has no control whatsoever over the earth's energy output.
The Sun is already halfway through its main-sequence stage, its gradually becoming more and more luminous. This is already explained in stellar evolution, its surface temperature is slowly rising in line with simulated computer models. This increase in solar temperatures means in another billion years the surface of the Earth will be too hot for liquid water to exist, all terrestrial life will end, long before our Sun ever becomes a Red Giant.

That's bordering on irrelevant. I accepted that the sun dictates the earth's received energy flux. I stated that directly in the quote.

(March 12, 2011 at 2:41 am)Welsh cake Wrote:
Quote:When it comes to the basic science of AGW, there's really nothing you can argue against.
Science thrives on skepticism, on open-mindedness, and searching for new ways of critical thinking, science stagnates in our convictions that it's infallible.

Please don't misuse the term open-mindedness. It doesn't mean being treating all ideas as equally likely to be true, it means being willing to alter one's beliefs upon the presentation of evidence contrary to a currently held belief.
You have been asked several times by myself and theVOID to present evidence; thus far you have not done so.

(March 12, 2011 at 2:41 am)Welsh cake Wrote: The arseholes in Climategate responded to critics of global warming theory that their skepticism wasn't "legitimate", and of course we all know about their infamous email controversy back in Nov '09.

The problem is that a lot of the criticsm comes from a basic misunderstanding of science. Take for example, the things you were saying a few posts back which were refuted. If you are ignorant of basic scientific principles, I'm afraid it is not the responsibility of climate scientists to personally educate you.

Another problem is obfuscation by the oil industry. What they tend to do is fund research which is then presented directly to the public via the media, completely bypassing the peer-review process.
And then of course your man in the street picks up his paper and sees simply "scientists say.....". If you're lucky, there might be a sentence at the end of the article stating that the research is not peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean too much to people outside of the scientific community anyway.

Actually I think some responsibility for this must be accepted by the scientific communty, at present there's a real failure when it comes to communicating with the public.
There's something of a void where there should be a dialogue between scientists and the public, and unfortunately into that void is creeping nonsense and pseudoscience. Why do you think things like homeopathy are so popular? It's because scientists aren't interacting with the public, leaving homeopaths to peddle their nonsense pretty much without challenge.

I think this is what they were referring to when talking of "illegitimate" skepticism.

Welsh Cake Wrote:You missed the point again, they didn't forget to account for it, they opted instead to *completely ignore it*

That is simply not true.

Quote:You also haven't heard of the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"?

Sure, but once again, you're misapplying the principle.
You seem to be under the impression that these guys are just taking 5 data points and drawing a line through them with a wax crayon.
You're right in that if I just measure two things to be correlated and do nothing further, I'm not in a position to make a claim about causality. But if I make a hypothesis, and the data support that hypothesis, them I am in a position to make such a claim, with some probabilistic degree of certainty.
You might be aware of something called statistical significance. This is essentially the answer to the question "given a hypothesis, how likely is the data?".
For publication in physics journals (in which a fair few AGW papers have been published), you generally need 3sigma significance, which essentially means you have to be 99.7% sure.

(Actually, I personally think the Bayesian approach is better, which answers the similar question "given the data, how likely is the hypothesis?". Although if you want to compare hypotheses, you can into a mess with things like prior probablilites, but that's not a discussion for here.)


Quote:Actually, it does. The industry, steam locomotives and coal mines in Wales are all long gone, yet they argue CO2 emissions have never been higher, and we need legislation to cut them, please explain that to me.

Burning fucktons of fossil fuels to generate electricity, and oil to move things around.



A lot of the AGW "skepticism" seems to go far beyond skepticism. The position seems to be "I wouldn't believe it, even if it were true".
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Earth' Recent CLimate Spiral 2.0 Leonardo17 105 5487 November 5, 2023 at 3:33 pm
Last Post: Leonardo17
  Earth's recent climate spiral. Jehanne 301 17048 March 5, 2023 at 12:54 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  I am so sick of climate change deniers. Brian37 34 2952 November 23, 2020 at 9:30 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Can we recover from human caused climate change? Aroura 27 6901 November 23, 2020 at 12:27 pm
Last Post: Peebothuhlu
  Climate Change and ecological collapse ph445 42 9281 August 3, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Various ways of fighting climate change dyresand 15 3385 April 1, 2017 at 5:26 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  When religion is at odds with climate change research Aegon 24 2810 December 28, 2016 at 1:51 pm
Last Post: Secular Elf
  Will modern society slow the progress of change? Heat 11 2891 May 10, 2016 at 1:52 am
Last Post: Excited Penguin
  Climate change Won2blv 56 11006 May 17, 2015 at 3:27 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Climate change skeptic turned proponent Surgenator 26 6536 February 19, 2015 at 2:09 am
Last Post: Surgenator



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)