Climate Change

[Cheshirechappie]

The problem with all this climate stuff is that it seems to have become a religion rather than a science. The True Believers will have you excommunicated if you don't toe the line, and Jihad is waged against the infidel. Academic careers are cut short if people don't say the 'right' things, and the public debate is conducted in such a way that anybody voicing even the tinyest bit of doubt are promptly denounced as uncaring, selfish, heartless b*stards who are mortgaging their children's futures for their own gratification. Frankly, I'm sick of it. It's no way to chart a path through scientific investigation and uncertainty.

 

[clk230]

I wonder how much pollution is caused by military activity i.e bombing raids , UN games in Poland etc etc . Maybe if we strived for peace this would also help the perceived Global warming

 

[Rhyolith]

1947 Extreme weather.
1950s extreme floods.
1966 extreme weather.
1976 Extreme weather.
1996 Extreme weather.
2016 extreme weather.

These kind of intervals are neither evidence for nor against climate change, as these are examples of weather not climate.

Climate - the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

Weather - the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

As I said before such weather can be examples of climate change if a trend is spotted outside the average... the problem is just getting the average ideally requires hundreds of years of data in high resolution (i.e. daily measurements as oppose to yearly for example). We don't have high resolution data more than 50 years back.

In case you want facts, here are some climate scientists. Real scientists. Real facts. Peer reviewed articles in respectable publications.

This is key. I don't read or watch news and my opinion is formed mostly on the scientific papers I have read and opinions of climate scientists, not those fanatics in the media. In the community described above there are not climate change skeptics that I know of.

So far the skeptics argument seems to hinge around criticising the evidence for climate change. The critique itself is fine and how it should be, however it does not make a good argument on to itself. There needs to be some evidence to support your view, peer reviewed scientific papers would be nice...

Few points:
- The climate models are wrong - Yes of course they are, the atmosphere is immensely complex and there is not way we can take every factor into account.

- There is not data taken prior to 1950 (approx) - There is no accurate data (sufficient to modern standards) prior taken to 1950 (approx), this is true to my knowledge, however there does not mean we don't have data prior to that date. The Science of paleo climatic research is well developed, using seeds (certain plants are present in certain climates), radio cartoon dating and human accounts of events can draw up and pretty god picture of past climates. The major issue in the resolution of this data oppose to ins accuracy (though obviously not as good as a modern climate monitoring station), in other words we know what the climate was doing over decades, but not year to year.

Strange how things go. Especially as science has not yet explained how the climate functions.

Errm, yes it has... don't know where you got this from. Climate science is kinda like throwing a ball off a mountain, you may understand every mechanic of how the ball interacts with the surface of the mountain as it rolls down, but that does not mean you will know exactly where in ends up due the shear number of equations :shock:

- China Produces more pollution so its pointless - How much pollution China produces every year is important, obviously. But what really matters is the amount of CO2 produce in total since the industrial revolution and for this Europe and America are in there own league.

- Global warming might be good - For the UK, a likely effect of a warming climate is the disruption of the gulf stream https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=evide ... ulf+stream this would result in a significantly colder climate for us, look at the parts of North America at the same latitude to get an idea of what this means. Further in the shorter term warmer seas mean more storms, which mean more floods etc... Basically there are many scientific predictions of what might happen if global warming continues, none are good for the UK.

 

[Benchwayze]

All I am saying Rhyolith is that these 'freak' happenstances of weather are nothing new. They have always been around, they always will be around. The climate is changing, that I grant you. It has always been changing, and it always will be changing.

So any effects we have had on our surroundings to cause these 'once in a hundred years' floods, must have been present when Lynton and Lynmouth were virtually wiped off the map, and when the East Coast almost vanished . What caused that? I doubt it was human activity, any more than it is now. One arrogant 'scientist actually said 'My computer models are NOT wrong. Real life is wrong!'
I hope he was speaking tongue in cheek.

And over my lifetime I have also noticed that;
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. (I quote Henry Louis Mencken of course. ) If that makes you think I smell conspiracy with the Global Warming Scam, and that I don't trust Al Gore, you'd be dead right.

 

[thetyreman]

The problem I have with this thread is that it's tarred with journalistic and political language, it's more journalistic than scientific, science is not journalism, but in recent years they have become blurred, and it's messy.

 

[paulrockliffe]

It's for the proposer of the hypothesis to prove it, not for people that disagree with it to prove the negative. That is how science works.

The problem with most of the Man Made Global Warming - lets use the proper title, not the modern ambiguous version - argument is that what is purported to be a scientific argument is not science at all. Science isn't argument by appeal to authority or appeal to consensus, or "I'm right look at my computer models, prove me wrong."

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Just one tincy wincy little issue chaps....the hole in the ozone layer is a measurable phenomenon! It's beyond speculation, journalism and politics. Science is essentially a means of removing subjectivity from measuring/evaluating nature in other words it operates on a level of mathematical probability that the results of any given experiment are repeatable (and therefore a good probability of being the truth). Gravity for example....no one can "deny" its existence. The earth being flat is a better example because people not only denied it for political/religious reasons (subjective) but went as far as naming Galileo as a heretic when he stated it was a measurable, provable "fact".

The science that gets such a bad name these days by politics/journalism and general conspiracy theorists is every bit as robust as was Galileo's all that time ago. The earth IS heating up due to greenhouse gases, it's a measurable fact. It's not subjective, it's objective.

Having said that, I also don't believe the human race will come anywhere close to surrendering it's love affair with profit to give more than lip service to solving it. It will take a major natural catastrophe before any real change occurs. I guess it's our kids that will have to clean that mess up! (If they survive)

 

[Rhyolith]

All I am saying Rhyolith is that these 'freak' happenstances of weather are nothing new. They have always been around, they always will be around. The climate is changing, that I grant you. It has always been changing, and it always will be changing.

There is necessarily a link between Human Induced Global Warming and freak weather events as the media likes to claim. Climate and weather are NOT the same thing.

The earth IS heating up due to greenhouse gases, it's a measurable fact. It's not subjective, it's objective.

Science!

 

[Rhyolith]

It's for the proposer of the hypothesis to prove it, not for people that disagree with it to prove the negative. That is how science works.

The problem with most of the Man Made Global Warming - lets use the proper title, not the modern ambiguous version - argument is that what is purported to be a scientific argument is not science at all. Science isn't argument by appeal to authority or appeal to consensus, or "I'm right look at my computer models, prove me wrong."

No, thats not how it works. A scientist will perform an expirment, write a report/journal article detailing it. They may or may not make an argument based on the evidence in their experiment (and others).

That report then goes to peers (scienctists in the same/similar feilds) to be reviewed to ensure its been done to a suitable level of quality; for example have the measurement tools been used correctly. If cleared, it then goes into the pool of research to be used by other scientists/academics to back there expriments & arguments.

A peer reveiwed scientific journal is about as objective and accurate as they come.

 

[RobinBHM]

- China Produces more pollution so its pointless - How much pollution China produces every year is important, obviously. But what really matters is the amount of CO2 produce in total and for this Europe and America are in there own league.

I think China actually produces more Co2 than US and EU put together, although not when compared per capita (where it is slightly more than EU).

Per capita, Qatar and Kuwait produce the most Co2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions

The problem for the UK is that our emissions per year are 415,000 Kt compared to China 10,540,000 Kt, US 5,334,000 Kt

All we can do is try and do our bit, but in reality it is a tiny blob on the map

Increasing energy costs help to focus on energy efficiency but the problem is that our housing stock is mostly old and is poorly insulated. Once things like light bulbs, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, windows and central heating boilers are changed, there is little more that can be done. A 1980's built house is never going to reach the efficiency of a new passihaus dwelling, without it being completely gutted and not many people will have the available funds or incentive to spend circa £50k to get back a few hundred a year.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Correct...a peer reviewed piece of scientific output is as close as it's possible to come to what we would all describe as "the truth".

The problem here is that (and I feel heavy hearted saying this) most people haven't had the opportunity to study or work in science at an advanced level and they just don't understand the power of rational/objective thought. The arguments are almost always subjective in nature ie an emotional response to the scientific output once it's been filtered by either politics or journalists.

I'll give a great example of how the media totally destroy the validity of scientific objective truth. Recently, some research was published about a breakthrough in cancer research. I happened to have read the scientific journal because my wife had cancer very recently and it was relevant to me at the time. It made no claims to "cure" cancer, offered no false hopes beyond the limited scope of the trials and was restricted to one very particular type of cancer. By the time the media had hold of the story it has snowballed into an "all cure" for pretty much all cancer and that evening a radio presenter interviewed one of the responsible scientists from the lab that conducted the trials. The poor woman was hauled over the coals and made to feel like she had pulled the very rug of life out from beneath the "hopeful" sufferers after the journalist had puffed up the research to be the panacea it never was in the first place. The scientists just carefully and deliberately explained the facts which from memory were to do with protein markers being discovered which could be used as targets for therapeutic agents and reiterated what I had read earlier. That it would only benefit certain types of cancer and they couldn't predict what the success rate would be without further study (objective measurement).

So there you have it...subjective (lunatic journalist who just wants a paper selling BIG story) and truth seeker (objective) who knows that to publish something rhetorical or patently untrue would never get past the peer review process.

I see it all the time and could give numerous other examples in business where the truth is completely and utterly different from what gets printed in the press for sake of a story. We as consumers of the media are victims of the "marketing" of spurious stories all the time. Just as Rhossyd was when he overheard some tittle tattle at Yandles resulting in a post which necessitated Yandles actually starting an account here to correct the information reported.

For those who don't really understand science, it is a very very reasonable and rational statement to make that it's about the MOST trustworthy information you will ever consume and certainly in another universe of closeness to the truth than is either journalisn or politics.

 

[Rhyolith]

- China Produces more pollution so its pointless - How much pollution China produces every year is important, obviously. But what really matters is the amount of CO2 produce in total and for this Europe and America are in there own league.

I think China actually produces more Co2 than US and EU put together, although not when compared per capita (where it is slightly more than EU).

Sorry that was not very clear. I meant in total over time, basically all the pollution put together since the Industrial Revolution. This is what matters as its the amount of CO2 removed from the ground and put in the air. I this sense the US is the worst by a huge amount and then Europe, China is not even comparable.

I will edit that sentence to prevent confusion, because its a key point.

 

[Rhyolith]

Correct...a peer reviewed piece of scientific output is as close as it's possible to come to what we would all describe as "the truth".

The problem here is that (and I feel heavy hearted saying this) most people haven't had the opportunity to study or work in science at an advanced level and they just don't understand the power of rational/objective thought. The arguments are almost always subjective in nature ie an emotional response to the scientific output once it's been filtered by either politics or journalists.

I'll give a great example of how the media totally destroy the validity of scientific objective truth. Recently, some research was published about a breakthrough in cancer research. I happened to have read the scientific journal because my wife had cancer very recently and it was relevant to me at the time. It made no claims to "cure" cancer, offered no false hopes beyond the limited scope of the trials and was restricted to one very particular type of cancer. By the time the media had hold of the story it has snowballed into an "all cure" for pretty much all cancer and that evening a radio presenter interviewed one of the responsible scientists from the lab that conducted the trials. The poor woman was hauled over the coals and made to feel like she had pulled the very rug of life out from beneath the "hopeful" sufferers after the journalist had puffed up the research to be the panacea it never was in the first place. The scientists just carefully and deliberately explained the facts which from memory were to do with protein markers being discovered which could be used as targets for therapeutic agents and reiterated what I had read earlier. That it would only benefit certain types of cancer and they couldn't predict what the success rate would be without further study (objective measurement).

So there you have it...subjective (lunatic journalist who just wants a paper selling BIG story) and truth seeker (objective) who knows that to publish something rhetorical or patently untrue would never get past the peer review process.

I see it all the time and could give numerous other examples in business where the truth is completely and utterly different from what gets printed in the press for sake of a story. We as consumers of the media are victims of the "marketing" of spurious stories all the time. Just as Rhossyd was when he overheard some tittle tattle at Yandles resulting in a post which necessitated Yandles actually starting an account here to correct the information reported.

For those who don't really understand science, it is a very very reasonable and rational statement to make that it's about the MOST trustworthy information you will ever consume and certainly in another universe of closeness to the truth than is either journalisn or politics.

Pretty much all scientific journals on the subject of Human induced climate change agree that its happening and a problem. Indeed its so universally accepted that the scientific research has long since moved on from investigating whether Human induced clime change is happening, to how its going to effect localities (such as the UK and the Gulf Stream), how we can reduce and mitigate its effects.

 

[Benchwayze]

Ros,

I said freak weather is nothing new. It's always been around and always will be. However, I do notice a certain rhythm to it's frequency, something which seems to go unremarked by the Climate Change scaremongers.

NMTS. :-# =;

 

[Fitzroy]

The planet is heating up, we have data to support that. The planet has seen worse and will be fine, species will change and life as we know it will be different but shmeh across any time period of note it always has been. However, humankind is likely to be heavily impacted if the warming does not stop. If we can show it's man-made then we can try to affect it, if we can show it's not man-made then we really have to plan for it. Either way humankind needs to be doing something, but humankind is very bad at acting in unison on anything.

 

[Beau]

1947 Extreme weather.
1950s extreme floods.
1966 extreme weather.
1976 Extreme weather.
1996 Extreme weather.
2016 extreme weather.

You missed out the storm of the century 1953, The winter of 1963, The storm of 1987. Burns day storm 1990. Hottest day in History 2003, Boscastle 2004. http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zcwj2hv

No rhythm in that.

 

[Rhyolith]

Ros,

I said freak weather is nothing new. It's always been around and always will be. However, I do notice a certain rhythm to it's frequency, something which seems to go unremarked by the Climate Change scaremongers.

NMTS. :-# =;

Usually those remarking are the aforementioned journalists/politicians/fanatics who don't actually understand Climate Change themselves. There is actually little scientific basis for freak whether events having anything to do with Global Warming, though this is not to say there is not a possibility link either... there is just not the evidence to support that claim presently. Ultimately it is important to look at these weather events objectively. Just because they made the news does not mean they are particulcar unusual or catastrophic, and vice versa. Further as some else pointed out the increased regularity of flood problems is down to more building on floodplains... there is a clue in the name :roll:

Floods can also be influenced, even out right caused by a lot of things other than just a lot of rain. Any rhythms or regularities need to be measured with more than just "there was a flood in 1978", we need to know what other factors were in play (frost, de-forestation, river engineering, building on floodplains, etc), the importance of the weather may not even be that significant. If the weather was the key factor, then a similar analysis can be carried out on other events and we get a picture of whether this is "normal" or not. Only once you have a long term understanding can you start to make links to Climate & global Warming.

At the end of the day these events are a good example of why a changing climate matters, but are a bit of a mine field when it comes to actual evidence for anything.

 

[bugbear]

It is also important to look at these weather events objectively. Just because they made the news does not mean they are particulcar unseal or catastrophic, and vice versa. Further as some else pointed out the increased regularity of flood problems is down to building on floodplains... there is a clue in the name :roll:

Any rhythms or regularities need to be measured with more than just "there was a flood in 1978", we need to know what other factors were in play (frost, de-forestation, river engineering, etc), the importance of the weather may not even be that significant.

It's almost as if climate science should be based on massive amounts of carefully collected data, over a long period of time, and not just what notable weather events people can remember from the media over the last few years. :roll:

The unfortunate truth is that Climate Physics is so complicated and hard to understand, and the amount of data that must be taken into account so enormous, that the number of people intellectually capable of understanding it, and having access to computers big enough to handle the data, is very small.

The rest of us are spectators on the sidelines.

IMHO the only rational thing to do, if you can't manage the science yourself (I most certainly include myself in that) is follow the, current, scientific consensus.

A bunch of woodworkers swapping out of context snippets of cherry picked evidence (on both sides) passes the time, but does little else.

BugBear

 

[Racers]

Actually discussing climate change on line will make it worse (if it is our fault) so to help, stop posting.

:wink:

Pete

 

[Rhyolith]

Actually discussing climate change on line will make it worse (if it is our fault) so to help, stop posting.

:wink:

Pete

I have solar panels