Global Warming - So What

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
    ...I will allow you the last word...
    Will you really?

    First I'll say again:
    There has been no attempt to 'bully' you into accepting anything because it has always been very clear that you aren't interested in anything other than a few cherry-picked facts that you felt supported what you wanted to believe.
    Although most of my replies on this thread have been to your posts, they have always been aimed more at pointing out to other people who might read the thread that your supposed facts are nothing of the sort.




    I'll summarise some of the false claims that landlord-man has made and then reference/link some sites that help to explain the actual scientific position.

    False claims:
    • Current warming is natural (with just some human influence) and is something "inevitable" that cannot be avoided. It is NOT "man made".
    • The planet will naturally get warmer over the next few thousand years and spending money to limit CO2 will do no more than perhaps delay this for a couple of thousand years.
    • It is people hundreds, perhaps thousands, of generations into the future who will have to deal with what we start to plan now.
    • "The planet is not going to heal itself but we CAN begin to plan for what WILL happen."
    • Science can only really assess, at most, the last 100 years of climate data in any detail, so it's really impossible for any real comparisons to be made with the past.
    • Nobody can predict natural changes coming - but because there have been cycles of hot periods and cold periods in the past, landlord-man is predicting that the Earth is naturally warming (with a, presumably unquantifiable, additional influence from man).

    The 'evidence' used to support all of these claims? A 2010 article from 'The Geological Society' that he linked in post #25.

    Unfortunately for landlord-man, almost all of the scientists who actually study the Earth's climate and related fields think the opposite to all six of these claims is what is actually true (including The Geological Society, who have specifically disagreed with most of these claims, including in the article that he posted as evidence - as indicated by the quotes from them I included in posts #42 & #69).

    The actual scientific position:
    • Current warming is almost entirely due to human activities.
    • Without the warming caused by humans the Earth would NOT be warming and would most likely actually be cooling slightly, heading towards a period of glaciation (although that wouldn't be expected for thousands of years, and has now likely already been delayed for at least several thousand more).
    • Rather than being an issue for people many generations in the future, if significant action is not taken now, it is children who are being born NOW who will have to start to deal with the effects.
    • Current warming is almost entirely due to man, so adverse effects are ONLY "inevitable" if the global population don't take sufficient action to reduce the effects. The planet, on the other hand, WILL heal itself, but this may take over 100,000 years and be without humans and a large percentage of other current life forms.
    • Scientists have sufficient data to assess about 140 years worth of global temperature data in detail, which can be expanded to many thousands of years with appropriate use of confidence limits, and are quite confident that comparisons with the past are appropriate.
    • The long term forcings that affect the Earth's climate are mostly well enough understood, and predictable enough, for very confident predictions of how the climate will change in the long term. Short term fluctuations are less easy to predict, but these have little effect on the long term trend.

    Additional information about the scientific position on climate change (which fully supports what I have said here, and contradicts landlord-man's assertions) can be found on the following websites. Other pages on the same sites also contain good information:

    Why scientists think 100% of [current] global warming is due to humans (CarbonBrief):
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-due-to-humans

    Why Milankovitch Cycles can't explain the Earth's current warming (NASA):
    https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/w...rrent-warming/

    A summary of natural warming cycles (Open Source Systems, Science, Solutions):
    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env.../natural-cycle

    Potential effects of climate change on wildlife within this century (WWF):
    https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change

    A paper looking at the 'human cost' of climate change:
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.02323/full

    How accurate are climate models (Skeptical Science):
    https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm

    And a ideal of how many scientific papers mention climate change (Google Scholar - with over 800,000 results from just the last 5 years):
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?a...=en&as_sdt=0,5


    There is also the Climate Change playlist on the Potholer54 Youtube channel which is worth a look (linked in an earlier post).

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
      You have NOT disproved that the climate is naturally changing because FACT shows what has taken place and that is a better indicator of whats coming than simply saying "oh no its not" lol
      This is two different statements glued together, so they need addressing separately.
      No one realistically disputes that the overall temperature of the planet changes over time (point one).

      But the consensus is that that is no longer a reliable indicator of "what's coming" because of human intervention (point two).
      Human activity has increased the overall temperature of the planet by about a degree celsius in 200 or so years.
      That's something that "normally" only happens at the catastrophic tipping point of gradual change - when an Ice age is about to begin or end, for example.
      The "normal" rate of change is much lower and change is much more gradual.

      So you need to uncouple the two assertions, because while the second point was the consensus scientific view a few decades ago, it isn't the case now.
      I don't claim to understand the science, but when the Unitied Nations says, this is the scientific consensus, I believe them.

      Humans are affecting the climate which I have always said.
      And you have, but you have, I think, either misunderstood or don't accept that the contribution of humanity is very recent, ,massively significant, accelerating and (probably) reversible.

      You cannot (nobody can) predict natural changes coming. But I would rather use natural historic changes as a fair indicator of the future.
      I'm not sure I follow, because that seems to contradict itself.
      But science can predict what's going to happen, they have (broadly) three likely scenarios, and as we move into the future, we can see whether or not the predicted short term changes are happening, which makes the longer term predictions more likely.

      Removing the impact of humanity from the models would make them completely unrealstic.
      The consensus is that the increase in the global temperature since about 1850 is almost entirely due to humanity - if you ignore that there's almost no change at all in that time frame - which would be consistent with the previous 300 years.
      The planet increasing in temperature by a degree normally takes 10 - 100 (or even a 1000) times as long - that's why it's so worrying and urgent.
      If things were happening as normal, no one would be worried in the slightest.
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #78
        Interesting talk by Vernon Coleman tonight: Global Warming: Lies, Fraud and Hypocrisy in Glasgow

        https://brandnewtube.com/watch/globa...B33oDZFwJ.html
        To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

        Comment


          #79
          The reality is that there is really only one reason why there continues to be any debate at all about whether anthropomorphic global warming/climate change is a problem, and what action should be taken to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to combat the effects.
          That reason is that too many right wing conservatives who either don't understand the science, or who intentional misrepresent it in a misguided attempt to protect polluting businesses, refuse to actively work towards change. Too many right leaning politicians, and the vast majority of right wing media and 'commentators' actively promote these misunderstandings and misrepresentations, giving the false impression that (a) the science is debatable, and (b) 'green' solutions are impossible.

          Of course, there are also well-meaning, but equally flawed, claims made by left wing politicians, media and 'commentators', that also misrepresent the science and by over-exaggerating the effects, help to reinforce the flawed right wing beliefs.

          This Youtube video (posted today, and about South Australia) gives an idea of what can happen when a right wing government embraced carbon reduction initiatives that were started by a left wing government, rather than actively fighting against them:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vInH3MqiaC8

          Comment


            #80
            The problem comes when both sides of the debate insist that their view is totally right and the other view is totally wrong.

            But both causes of climate change have a part to play in the overall scenario.

            So we have to account for both, and tackle them both as best we can.

            That means both cutting emissions to tackle human caused warming, and planning long term for the changes brought by natural cycles.

            Focusing on one cause only and ignoring the other is misguided.

            Just because someone points out that the climate cycles naturally doesn't mean that they deny human causes of climate change are important.
            But if they try to make what is a valid point they are instantly branded as 'climate deniers' by some.
            (A term that has always struck me as stupid in itself, nobody denies that we have a climate).

            And Macromia is correct in that a lot of those one-sided views are being actively fostered/promoted by 'interested parties/groups' on either side of what should be an unnecessary debate.
            The whole debate itself is just an example of such misdirection.

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by nukecad View Post
              But both causes of climate change have a part to play in the overall scenario.
              Yes, but you aren't taking into account the time scales.

              Anthropomorphic Climate Change (i.e. the effect caused directly by humans) are already starting to occur and will likely be causing significant effects by the end of this century regardless of how much action is taken now.

              Natural processes, on the other hand, would not be leading to any significant change for at least a few thousand years - and since the natural slow cooling has already been delayed by the warming effects of human carbon dioxide emissions, natural cooling over the next few centuries will only be countering the warming that has already occurred.

              I linked to several sites that explain the scientific position in a post that is currently 'unapproved'.
              Perhaps Moderator2 can approve that post

              Comment


                #82
                There is a known 60 year weather (rainfall, and temperatures) cycle, and other known cycles, that should be taken into account. It's not just long term variations.

                The point that I'm trying to make is that any 'popular' debate such as this one tends to be quickly hijacked by those with extreme viewpoints on either side.
                Which means that any moderate viewpoints get quickly shouted down and sidelined.

                Unfortunately that's the way politics and debating goes - people think they can prove something by 'shouting' the loudest and/or the most often.
                (And unfortunately it often works, so it's not going to stop).

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by JK0 View Post
                  Interesting talk by Vernon Coleman tonight: Global Warming: Lies, Fraud and Hypocrisy in Glasgow
                  This is a perfect example of why so many people disagree with you that you feel a need to list them in a 'signature' that appears on all posts.

                  Dr Vernon Coleman is a retired GP who doesn't seem to have published any medical research, let alone research on anything even vaguely related to climate (although he has had a few letters published in medical journals, as well as an article on "why patients should keep their own medical records).

                  He is most famous as a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer, among other things claiming that AIDS is a hoax, that Covid is a hoax, and that people giving Covid vaccinations are war criminals.
                  https://www.vernoncoleman.com/aids.htm
                  https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/sc...accine-safety/

                  His allegations of conspiracies involving medical topics are considered laughable - so why should anyone treat his outlandish claims about any other subject as anything other than the rantings of a mad man?

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                    There is a known 60 year weather (rainfall, and temperatures) cycle, and other known cycles, that should be taken into account. It's not just long term variations.
                    I agree - and where they are relevant shorter term variation IS taken into account in climate models.

                    There are a number of short term weather cycles that have been recognised (including 'Atlantic & Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations' and the much shorter term El Nino/La Nino), but both these and short term effects due to things like volcanic eruptions tend not to affect long term trends.
                    I have seen some very convincing figures that take the measured surface air temperatures for the 60 years between 1880 and 1940 and superimpose the pattern from the measured temperatures between 1940 and 2000 on top of these. The correlation between temperatures during these two consecutive 60 year periods is remarkably good and does seem to suggest the temperatures followed a similar pattern of cooling/warming.
                    There are two very clear problems for people who want to assert that this means that current warming is explained by these 60 year cycles:
                    1. Although, during these two 60 year periods, global temperatures follow exactly the same pattern, starting with warm temperatures before cooling and then warming again, both periods end with warmer temperatures than when they began, so the second 60 years started at a higher temperature than during the first 60 years and ended even higher.
                    2. Temperatures since 2000 should be falling if they followed the same pattern, but have actually increased.

                    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                    The point that I'm trying to make is that any 'popular' debate such as this one tends to be quickly hijacked by those with extreme viewpoints on either side.
                    Which means that any moderate viewpoints get quickly shouted down and sidelined.
                    I agree, which is why I have always said, and will continue to say, that it is the evidence based scientific position that should be followed - not what those who don't understand, refuse to accept the science say, and not what people who intentionally misrepresent the science say.
                    As for "moderate viewpoints" though, that depends very much on what you consider to be a 'moderate viewpoint'. The position that should be followed is not whatever falls between the two extremes, it is whatever the science supports.

                    Currently temperature, sea level and polar ice extent mostly fits within the ranges predicted by climate models that most closely match actual carbon-dioxide emissions - although typically close to the most negative part of the predicted variance.

                    P.S. Regarding your earlier comment about 'Climate deniers' being a bad term, many terms aren't particularly accurate if taken literally (for example, most landlords are now neither lords or owners of landed estates). You know what is meant by 'Climate denier' even if it has been shortened from 'Anthropomorphic climate change denier' which would be more literally accurate.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      I'm guilty of using inaccurate, shorthand, terms myself when it suits convenince.

                      But I guess we wouldn't be human if certain ones didn't get up our individual noses.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Climate Change in Action - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-58980007

                        Triggers Broom Handle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAh8HryVaeY

                        Both equally funny.

                        No debate needed PMSL
                        My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                          What, exactly, is it that you think is the problem with this article?

                          By trying to associate it with 'Trigger's broom handle', it seems that you are suggesting that the article is saying that the same snow has been present, but this is very clearly not what the article says if you actually read it (let alone what the position held by the scientist quoted is - which is always potentially entirely different from what any media article claims).

                          When you actually read the article, all it actually says is that a patch of snow that usually persists for many years at a time is now melting away with increasing frequency (with this year included), and that this has been put down to increasing temperatures resulting from climate change.
                          The article doesn't make any mention of the underlying cause of the climate change so, since you claim not to deny that climate change is occurring, what is it in the article that you are objecting to?




                          Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                          No debate needed PMSL
                          Even if this MEDIA ARTICLE had made claims that were very clearly exaggerations, even so ridiculous that they would look out of place in even the most extreme fantasy story, that would only reinforce what I have previously said - that you shouldn't be getting your understanding of the scientific position on climate change from media stories.

                          If you think that any aspect of the scientific position is debatable - then actually debate the scientific position.
                          That's not what the people who deny that anthropomorphic climate change is real do though (with this thread being little more than yet another demonstration of this). What 'anthropomorphic climate change deniers instead do is base their denial on misrepresentation of the actual science that they read in the popular media and on blog posts - and they often even misunderstand what their own 'sources' say.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            An attempt to repost links from an earlier post that remains 'unapproved':

                            The actual scientific position:
                            • Current warming is almost entirely due to human activities.
                            • Without the warming caused by humans the Earth would NOT be warming and would most likely actually be cooling slightly, heading towards a period of glaciation (although that wouldn't be expected for thousands of years, and has now likely already been delayed for at least several thousand more).
                            • Rather than being an issue for people many generations in the future, if significant action is not taken now, it is children who are being born NOW who will have to start to deal with the effects.
                            • Current warming is almost entirely due to man, so adverse effects are ONLY "inevitable" if the global population don't take sufficient action to reduce the effects. The planet, on the other hand, WILL heal itself, but this may take over 100,000 years and be without humans and a large percentage of other current life forms.
                            • Scientists have sufficient data to assess about 140 years worth of global temperature data in detail, which can be expanded to many thousands of years with appropriate use of confidence limits, and are quite confident that comparisons with the past are appropriate.
                            • The long term forcings that affect the Earth's climate are mostly well enough understood, and predictable enough, for very confident predictions of how the climate will change in the long term. Short term fluctuations are less easy to predict, but these have little effect on the long term trend.

                            Additional information about the scientific position on climate change (which fully supports what I have said here, and contradicts landlord-man's assertions) can be found on the following websites. Other pages on the same sites also contain good information:

                            Why scientists think 100% of [current] global warming is due to humans (CarbonBrief):
                            https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-due-to-humans

                            Why Milankovitch Cycles can't explain the Earth's current warming (NASA):
                            https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/w...rrent-warming/

                            A summary of natural warming cycles (Open Source Systems, Science, Solutions):
                            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env.../natural-cycle

                            Potential effects of climate change on wildlife within this century (WWF):
                            https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change

                            A paper looking at the 'human cost' of climate change:
                            https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.02323/full

                            How accurate are climate models (Skeptical Science):
                            https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm

                            And a ideal of how many scientific papers mention climate change (Google Scholar - with over 800,000 results from just the last 5 years):
                            https://scholar.google.com/scholar?a...=en&as_sdt=0,5


                            There is also the Climate Change playlist on the Potholer54 Youtube channel which is worth a look (linked in an earlier post).

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Somebody with a bit more authority saying what I mentioned earlier:
                              "the vast bulk of the scientific community, including most major scientific academies, is prejudiced by the prospect of research funding".
                              "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism" and "the IPCC process is unrelated to science".

                              Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer


                              Sounds familiar. Wasn't there a medical researcher stating in The Lancet that Covid was not created in a lab? And then it was found he had links to this research and made this claim because he didn't want funding cut. Scientists are human, first and foremost.

                              I may not have a plethora of scientific literature to cite at every corner, but I do have some common sense and independence of thought. I wonder how many people have been turned off this green crusade after seeing the hypocrisy of leaders in their private jets at COP26.


                              Comment


                                #90
                                There is some irony to that claim....

                                "He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006,[31] independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[32] chairman of TNT Mines Limited "...etc

                                "According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[40] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs"

                                I am sure that most scientists would be able to earn more if they were denying climate change than they do working for universities and research institutes.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X