Greg, now do you believe that Climate Change is real?

tgotb

Rick Chasey wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It shouldn't be up to those who figure 'if the broad consensus seems to be that it's likely, then it probably is" to prove to the sceptics - it should be up to the sceptics to prove the body of science wrong with their own science.

Really? If no-one questioned the "broad consensus" we'd still believe we were living in a world at the centre of the universe with the heavens revolving around us.

Questioning the general consensus and demanding evidence helps us to evaluate the constant stream of conflicting information and figure out which of the conflicting views presented to us are likely to be closest to the truth. Merely parroting other people's views on the basis that "lots of people say it so it must be true" seeks to maintain the status quo regardless of whether it is actually correct, and adds no value whatsoever to an intelligent debate.

The evidence is there. Go ahead and question it. Just ask people who actually are providing the evidence and the science. I haven't done the science, why ask me to prove it to him? If he wants the answer, go looking for it.

Unless he doesn't want to incase it proves his scepticism wrong, in which case, fine.

you know what I mean.

it's an easy position to go 'No, no, not convinced. Need more evidence. No no". Actually being a bit more proactive about it is a little harder and more constructive.

If you read back up the thread, you'll see that I'm not actually arguing against the general principles of climate change, I'm taking issue with the OP's approach of stating a point of view, and backing it up with the argument that "I feel this strongly, so I must be right" which is why I mentioned the LA thread.

You've at least cited a couple of vaguely credible external sources; the OP is expecting us to trust his intuition, which hasn't proved to be that accurate in the past...

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

The internet is a great resource, there is lots of very useful stuff on the internet, but seriously guys, WTF are you doing pulling these rabbits out of their hats? These sites do the pro-AGW cause very little credit in my view. They are just a collection of snippets. I have no idea whether they are right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but what I am sure of is that they are unreliable: they're a collection of assertions that are lined up in row to support the point that they want to make.

So your assertion - that CO2 is insignificant relative to water vapour, and that therefore man is unlikely to influence the climate - trumps those assertions because..? You've not really put anything forward to back up your assertion beyond stating that water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas by volume and effect. I can't see how that in itself prevents the second most significant (CO2) from also having a significant effect.

That an increase in CO2 levels (I understand this has been relatively well established from actual measurements in recent history and proxy measurements of other indicators to give levels further back in history) could cause a small initial warming, that is then magnified by the effect of other gases (water vapour in particular) seems more than plausible.

As to why AGW wasn't noticeable earlier, we are burning a *lot* more fossil fuels now than in the 18th/19th century.

In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes

Calculated from file global.1751_2008.csv here from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

cjcp

Climate change or not, if this Sh!t Weather continues, it's probably good news for the likes of Castelli, who should see sales of their Pocketliner, Muur and Gabba range increase exponentially.

moarspeed

I'd be more inclined to believe IF they stopped promoting consumerism as a solution to it.

"Buy new cars to save the planet!!!" How does that work then?

jimmypippa

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There's some debunking of the water vapour argument here

JIMMYPIPPA wrote:

this site is quite a good blog on the subject
http://tamino.wordpress.com/

The internet is a great resource, there is lots of very useful stuff on the internet, but seriously guys, WTF are you doing pulling these rabbits out of their hats? These sites do the pro-AGW cause very little credit in my view. They are just a collection of snippets. I have no idea whether they are right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but what I am sure of is that they are unreliable: they're a collection of assertions that are lined up in row to support the point that they want to make.

jimmypippa wrote:

I can't answer the heat question except indirectly - the moon, with no greenhouse effect has a mean surface temperature of 220K (-53°C) at the equator (according to Wiki). This should be about the same as the Earth (mean temperature is usually given as about 15°C). The difference is mostly due to the greenhouse effect. That doesn't answer your question - but then I am not a climate scientist and their models are quite complex; it does show how significant the greenhouse effect is.

Historically it looks as though the there were about 280ppm CO2 in the pre industrial age ( http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif) It is now over 400ppm and rising at about 2ppm per year. According to the BBC it was 350ppm in 1993.

A 30% increase since the industrial revolution is significant.

As to the water vapour question - it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long as it tends to condense and fall as rain or snow, for example - CO2 persists for far longer.

Woah there. You told us basic physics provided the answer. But then you say you can't explain the basic physics and in fact it's all a question of understanding complex models that climate scientists use.

The basic principle is simple - an increase in CO2 blocks more IR radiation from the Earth, whilst letting in the shorter wavelength light from the sun, reducing the rate that heat is radiated into space. The actual system is complicated - that's why we need computer models for the atmosphere.

This doesn't help your cause: you claim it's all very simple, but when asked to explain it you say you can't because it's all very complex.

I can explain the basic idea - I can't quantify things easily.

I'm not sure really if you are serious with your references to the moon, and statements that water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long. As to the first, the earth has an atmosphere. The moon doesn't. To say that the difference between their average surface temps is down to greenhouse gases seems bizarre to me. As for the water vapour, didn't you draw diagrams for O Level Geography showing water falling to the ground over land, running out to sea, and rising back into the atmosphere to form clouds?

Yes I am serious about the moon. It lacks an atmosphere, which means that it lacks a greenhouse effect. Its average distance from the Sun is pretty similar to the Earth's, yet it's average surface temperature is far colder. The difference is due to the greenhouse effect of the Earth's atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is already making the Earth's surface about 50-degrees warmer than would be the case otherwise.

It doesn't take much of an additional increase in the strength of the greenhouse effect to raise the temperature by (say) another 4-degrees, which would cause major disruption and hardship for a lot of the World's population.

As for the CO2 increase since the industrial revolution, why hasn't the climate changed since then? Perhaps a more direct question: What is the "climate" in this discussion, how has it changed over the last 200 years, and how is that change material?

The climate has changed and there is plenty of evidence. That is why farmers are changing the crops that they grow.

pblakeney

cjcp wrote:

Climate change or not, if this Sh!t Weather continues, it's probably good news for the likes of Castelli, who should see sales of their Pocketliner, Muur and Gabba range increase exponentially.

MOARspeed wrote:

I'd be more inclined to believe IF they stopped promoting consumerism as a solution to it.

"Buy new cars to save the planet!!!" How does that work then?

I wholeheartedly agree.
Pointing fingers using links to science will do no good, and spouting opinions, even less.

What needs to be discussed it what can we realistically do about it that will give significant results?
Remembering that this is a global problem where local solutions are insignificant.
Think global and act local is a nice platitude but will not garner any significant results. We need to change human expectations at resource/power supply and government levels. Whether these discussions conclude changes to lifestyle or weather will be down to what can be achieved in efforts or results.

rjsterry

MOARspeed wrote:

I'd be more inclined to believe IF they stopped promoting consumerism as a solution to it.

"Buy new cars to save the planet!!!" How does that work then?

Greenwash is a problem. The construction industry is rife with it; the annual Ecobuild expo is now largely just another trade show with some 'Eco' branding. I've even seen those fan heaters that you get in shop doorways marketed with a completely straight face as a 'green' product!

But it isn't climate scientists that are trying to sell you the latest Prius, it is just marketers doing what they are good at. And that marketing does not invalidate the science. Just because some health food products aren't actually very healthy, doesn't mean that you should ignore all advice about healthy eating.

Sewinman

It doesn't really matter if Greg believes in it, does it!

This is a good summary report of the current position - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... g1-spm.pdf

I would not blame these storms on climate change though, although we are bound to experience increasing extremes of weather.

DonDaddyD

Greg and TGOB,

I'm just a theorist, I ponder, and will let smarter chaps than I discuss the science of this. My post was merely to point out that we are introducing substances into the World's ecolsystem that do not natually occur. Now we know that the ecosystem works on the basis of maintaining a balance of natural occurances (natural in this instance being things that occur normally through nature that have an effect on the ecosystem; primarily for this discussion, the weather) and there is a cause and effect order to things.

What we do not know is what will happen in the short or long term when you introduce unnatural/man made effects into said ecosystem and how that will impact on the weather. Now simple science has proven that more often than not when you introduce a new variable into a process the usual effect/outcome is likely to change. I.e. You cannot add more energy into something without getting an equal and opposite reaction at the other end and that energy being transfered into something else or another form.

Sure there are tolerances and one could rationalise that an ecosystem does have tolerances to maintain natural order, and, yes, we do not know what the tolerance for this is. However, I find it hard to not acknowledge that if there is a natural process and we introduce something unnatural to said process there will not be a change in the result at the other end.

So, yeah, I think we are affecting the weather. How much or how little, I do not know but there is bound to be positives and negatives to said affect.

This has probably been said already.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg and TGOB,

I'm just a theorist, I ponder, and will let smarter chaps than I discuss the science of this. My post was merely to point out that we are introducing substances into the World's ecolsystem that do not natually occur. Now we know that the ecosystem works on the basis of maintaining a balance of natural occurances (natural in this instance being things that occur normally through nature that have an effect on the ecosystem; primarily for this discussion, the weather) and there is a cause and effect order to things.

What we do not know is what will happen in the short or long term when you introduce unnatural/man made effects into said ecosystem and how that will impact on the weather. Now simple science has proven that more often than not when you introduce a new variable into a process the usual effect/outcome is likely to change. I.e. You cannot add more energy into something without getting an equal and opposite reaction at the other end and that energy being transfered into something else or another form.

Sure there are tolerances and one could rationalise that an ecosystem does have tolerances to maintain natural order, and, yes, we do not know what the tolerance for this is. However, I find it hard to not acknowledge that if there is a natural process and we introduce something unnatural to said process there will not be a change in the result at the other end.

So, yeah, I think we are affecting the weather. How much or how little, I do not know but there is bound to be positives and negatives to said affect.

This has probably been said already.

That is what professional climate scientists and the IPCC do....read the report I posted. Paying any attention to musings by amateur scientists on a cycling forum is a complete waste of time IMHO.

davmaggs

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg and TGOB,

I'm just a theorist, I ponder, and will let smarter chaps than I discuss the science of this. My post was merely to point out that we are introducing substances into the World's ecolsystem that do not natually occur. Now we know that the ecosystem works on the basis of maintaining a balance of natural occurances (natural in this instance being things that occur normally through nature that have an effect on the ecosystem, chiefly the weather) and there is a cause and effect order to things.

I'm not in the denier camp, but neither am I in the doom-laden panic camp either as humans will adapt. I also think that this issue is being latched onto by people with a political agenda (both the hair shirt mob and big oil etc etc)

We have at the moment some minor flooding (as painful as it is for the people affected). We cannot attribute one bout of rain and poor management into some moment where climate change is suddenly proven. Scientists are not using this event as evidence.

As to why I quoted your text DDD. Well, it's vague and wishy washy bilge. Reminds of bar room dolts spouting on about some fad diet or other and so forth.

The earth's eco system and environment has never had a day of stability, not one. It is in constant change albeit sometimes slow and at other times more rapid. Oxygen isn't 'natural' to the atmosphere if you select a certain timeframe.

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg and TGOB,
We have at the moment some minor flooding (as painful as it is for the people affected). We cannot attribute one bout of rain and poor management into some moment where climate change is suddenly proven. Scientists are not using this event as evidence.

To be fair I've made this post time and again. Last time there was snow and no spring. Time before that the unusually hot Summer. This time storms...

As to why I quoted your text DDD. Well, it's vague and wishy washy bilge. Reminds of bar room dolts spouting on about some fad diet or other and so forth.

Thanks, what have I done to insult you so directly, probably something it is me after all.

Oxygen isn't 'natural' to the atmosphere if you select a certain timeframe.

What? OK so if Oxygen didn't exist 20tillion years ago, when it did it occured through nature, a natural process - natural. It isn't artificial, it isn't man made.

rick_chasey

Climate change belief just boils down to this - do you trust broad scientific consensus or not?

You can get arse ache about the social and political implications of it, and argue about the solution.

But if you fundamentally believe in rational evidence based thinking, then you accept that climate change is occurring and man is very likely to be contributing significantly to it and probably accelerating it.

That's all there is to it, unless you are in a position to do your own experiments and derive you own respected and acknowledged conclusions which say to the contrary.

davmaggs

Most of the crap that humans are tossing out into the environment is natural, its just the sheer quantities and release of the material that causes the dramas. There are some combinations of chemicals (woops, chemicals are believed to be unnatural too) that aren't found in nature of course, but the problem of climate change appears to be related primarily to methane, CO2 and chums which come from all natural ingredients.

The pub bores going on about "natural" seem reluctant to down arsenic or opium despite their naturalness. "Natural" does not equal good, and man-made does not equal an abomination against the gods/Gaia.

davmaggs

Sorry DDD, I overlooked the Oxygen causing mass loss of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Jump to the bit about mineral creation, it's really cool.

Sewinman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Climate change belief just boils down to this - do you trust broad scientific consensus or not?

You can get ars* ache about the social and political implications of it, and argue about the solution.

But if you fundamentally believe in rational evidence based thinking, then you accept that climate change is occurring and man is very likely to be contributing significantly to it and probably accelerating it.

That's all there is to it, unless you are in a position to do your own experiments and derive you own respected and acknowledged conclusions which say to the contrary.

Well put, I thought we left this behind with the Enlightenment!

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

Most of the crap that humans are tossing out into the environment is natural, its just the sheer quantities and release of the material that causes the dramas. There are some combinations of chemicals (woops, chemicals are believed to be unnatural too) that aren't found in nature of course, but the problem of climate change appears to be related primarily to methane, CO2 and chums which come from all natural ingredients.

The pub bores going on about "natural" seem reluctant to down arsenic or opium despite their naturalness. "Natural" does not equal good, and man-made does not equal an abomination against the gods/Gaia.

What you appear to be doing is ignoring the fact that we are pumping more natural substances into the environment by unnatural means and that throws the balance of things out - that's the problem.

Thanks for the link in your other post. You miss my point however, you said Oxygen isn't 'natural' to the atmosphere if you select a certain timeframe. Sure, but it occured through natural means meaning it isn't unnatural in nature. If you explode a nuclear bomb the subsequent radiation is in the atmosphere, it didn't occur naturally - i.e. unnatural.

pblakeney

DonDaddyD wrote:

What we do not know is what will happen in the short or long term when you introduce unnatural/man made effects into said ecosystem and how that will impact on the weather.

Can we leave it at that then?

davmaggs

We are edging into the realms of philosophy and whether man is just another animal.

The oxygen was created by life forms, and it killed lots of other lifeforms. The oil and coal we burn was created by lifeforms and is perfectly natural. We do of course dig it up and release it into the wider atmosphere faster than it would do through leakage. The cattle that release methane or the buried vegetation of Siberia are all natural too, but our way of live increases it.

My point is that by using vague terms like 'natura'l adds little, and is woolly. This then becomes the subject of debate (as we are doing now) as its weak thinking.

Personally I go with the scientists as I believe that the method is the greatest achievement of man. I therefore expend my mental energies into the debate about what to do or not do, and whether those proposals are sound.

DonDaddyD

Fair point.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

What? OK so if Oxygen didn't exist 20tillion years ago, when it did it occured through nature, a natural process - natural. It isn't artificial, it isn't man made.

I really think you're oversimplifying this... Actually, most public discourse on climate change is simplified to the point of being pretty pointless, so you're not alone. I think when the media first got hold of this in the 80's (or whatever) they just latched on to the idea of CO2 causing the earth to heat up, the icecaps to melt, and sea levels to rise. This isn't a very helpful view of the issue because while sea levels rising and weather changing isn't a good thing, they aren't the only destructive effects of atmospheric CO2. For example we're only relatively recently discovering the effects that oceanic acidification has on ecosystems and geology, and the potential tipping points we may be close to passing.

But it is worth noting that most people who are skeptical of all this seem to be primarily objecting to how governments and industry are reacting to it. They object to subsidising green technology, or allowing windturbines to be built, or to "green" taxes or penalties etc... Which is fair enough, to be honest. These kinds of things aren't always well thought out.

My view is that anthropogenic climate change probably is happening, but that humans have built up such momentum with regards to industrialisation, that there is very little we can do within acceptable political restraints to reverse it. However I feel it still makes a great deal of sense to use the model to help form policy, and besides, doing things like heavily investing in renewable technology is a good idea whether our CO2 emissions turn out to be having an effect or not.

If working on alternatives means we don't have to do things like frack our countryside, or strip mine tarsands, then its money well spent. And I can put up with politicians talking out their arse about melting icecaps for that.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Climate change belief just boils down to this - do you trust broad scientific consensus or not?

You can get ars* ache about the social and political implications of it, and argue about the solution.

But if you fundamentally believe in rational evidence based thinking, then you accept that climate change is occurring and man is very likely to be contributing significantly to it and probably accelerating it.

That's all there is to it, unless you are in a position to do your own experiments and derive you own respected and acknowledged conclusions which say to the contrary.

The funny thing about the climate change debate though, is just the sheer number of people who actively distrust scientific consensus. The implication is that they believe that there is some secret conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people whose careers revolve around rigour and the scientific method. Its a bizarre anti-intellectualism that I just don't understand, but is really very common. You only have to look at things like this http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ or the anti vax movement, or homeopathy to see it.

rick_chasey

People believe what they want to believe and what suits their agenda.

Has always been thus.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

People believe what they want to believe and what suits their agenda.

Has always been thus.

Which is why apprently earnest threads like this one are pretty pointless

Coach H

jimmypippa wrote:

A simplistic analysis suggests that global warming is happening, and the vast majority of climate scientists believe it is - if a climate scientist could show it wasn't happening, their career would be made as loads of fossil fuel companies would be able to use that to remove restrictions on fossil fuel exploitation

But if you consider the amount of finance generated by the support of climate change compared to the amount of additional profit generated by the fossil fuel business, its no wonder there are not many climate scientists rushing forward to prove it is not happening or peer reviewing the scientist's that do.

notsoblue

Coach H wrote:

But if you consider the amount of finance generated by the support of climate change compared to the amount of additional profit generated by the fossil fuel business, its no wonder there are not many climate scientists rushing forward to prove it is not happening or peer reviewing the scientist's that do.

Is the finance generated by the support of climate change already more than the fossil fuel business?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Climate change belief just boils down to this - do you trust broad scientific consensus or not?

But science does not depend on consensus, science depends on evidence. The problem is that the Earth's climate is an extremely complex system that does not easily fit into simple models, and so when people make sweeping predictions based on imperfect models, they tend to be wrong - in ways that may or may not be significant.
The whole area is so politicised that both sides are jumping, in quite a panicky way, on any evidence that might possibly support their (by now entirely fixed) viewpoint. The unpredicted flattening of global temperature rise for instance - it has led to a lot of very hasty new theories, because the model previously accepted by the "broad scientific consensus" hadn't predicted that. These new theories may or may not turn out to be correct (as, indeed, it does seem that man-made global warming is almost certainly real on the whole) - I'm merely reflecting on the extraordinary amount of emotional belief that people have in the whole thing: and that's not science.

jamesco

bompington wrote:

The whole area is so politicised that both sides are jumping, in quite a panicky way, on any evidence that might possibly support their (by now entirely fixed) viewpoint.

There are two sides to the debate over AGW in the same way that there are two sides debating whether evolution is a fact or two sides as to whether the earth is round.

A climate scientist who could disprove the current consensus would make a name for himself (or herself) and earn the ever-lasting gratitude of the petro-chemical industry. The fact that this hasn't happened should tell all the doubters how weak their case is.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Climate change belief just boils down to this - do you trust broad scientific consensus or not?

But science does not depend on consensus, science depends on evidence. The problem is that the Earth's climate is an extremely complex system that does not easily fit into simple models, and so when people make sweeping predictions based on imperfect models, they tend to be wrong - in ways that may or may not be significant.
The whole area is so politicised that both sides are jumping, in quite a panicky way, on any evidence that might possibly support their (by now entirely fixed) viewpoint. The unpredicted flattening of global temperature rise for instance - it has led to a lot of very hasty new theories, because the model previously accepted by the "broad scientific consensus" hadn't predicted that. These new theories may or may not turn out to be correct (as, indeed, it does seem that man-made global warming is almost certainly real on the whole) - I'm merely reflecting on the extraordinary amount of emotional belief that people have in the whole thing: and that's not science.

A number of independent science groups have all arrived to the same conclusion. That's what we mean by consensus.

It's not the science depending on consensus - it's the science arriving at consensus.

Drew123

Is climate change real? Yup, always has been.
Does human activity cause climate change? Almost certainly.
What are the implications for the climate now, in 50 or 100 years? Who knows?
How much are you personally prepared to pay to try to find out? £500, £1,000, £10,000?
If the answer is that we still don't know, will you want your money back?
If the answer means you have to pay more for your energy, give up foreign holidays, your car, cheap food from intensive farming, will you vote for the political party that commits to doing this?