Jump to content

Climate Change


Raider5678

Recommended Posts

Skepticalscience is one of the best supported and most accurate climate sites out there with evidence supporting each claim. Is there a specific claim they've made which you're doubting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skepticalscience is one of the best supported and most accurate climate sites out there with evidence supporting each claim. Is there a specific claim they've made which you're doubting?

No. I was never really big into believing climate change was real so I figured I might as well look it up in my free time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I was never really big into believing climate change was real so I figured I might as well look it up in my free time.

Out of curiosity, do you also doubt magnetism and the freezing point of water are real? What about the fact that babies are conceived when sperm enters the egg (and are not delivered by stork)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, do you also doubt magnetism and the freezing point of water are real? What about the fact that babies are conceived when sperm enters the egg (and are not delivered by stork)?

I'm confused... Why wouldn't I believe that?

Do you not believe them O.O

Just kidding, I know what your getting defensive about. I said I was never a big believer in climate change, as in I never really argued about it with anyone. I already knew it was real. Its undeniable.

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Little Ice Age and solar Maunder Minimum are key pieces of "It's the sun not CO2" climate science disagreeing. Otherwise they would be just small components of natural climate variation with no special standout significance. The argument goes that the low solar activity of the Maunder Minimum must have caused the Little Ice Age and if solar activity has that much influence then the increase in solar activity after then, and especially during the 20th century, can explain global warming without involving CO2. With solar activity heading in a period of decline, a bit like the Maunder Minimum, then we should expect another little ice age and the end of global warming.

 

Some serious issues with that are - it involves unexplained, unsupported blanket dismissal of the science supporting the significant role of greenhouse gases: it fails to look at what else was going on around that time that could provide alternate causation for the little ice age like volcanic activity ( http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html ) and AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation aka Gulf Stream) slowdown: recent revision of historic sunspot data that are the proxy evidence of solar activity changes used - revision done independent of climate science by solar specialists to reconcile different sunspot counts of different historic methodologies - means estimates of increased solar activity over the 20th century is not so clear and the correlation with warming breaks down ( http://www.nature.com/news/spotty-sunspot-record-gets-a-makeover-1.18145 ): and recent low solar activity has not resulted in any slowdown of global warming, with the short term variability - mostly El Niño Southern Oscillation - that tended to mask warming in the surface air temperatures during the first part of this century now being followed by variability that is taking temperatures back to and above the longer term trend and into record territory.

 

 

With Little Ice Age causes other than solar activity - multiple volcanic eruptions over a few decades triggering ice and snow cover changes that persisted (global cooling from single eruptions normally gone within a couple of years) - the key basis for claiming global warming is primarily natural and sun caused breaks down.

 

In one of those curious coincidences one of the counter intuitive outcomes of warming that is possible (but not considered likely) is a sudden shutdown of AMOC with consequences that would look quite similar to the "new little ice age" the sun not CO2 proponents are predicting for their new solar Maunder Minimum - influx of freshwater from Greenland and other glacial melt as well as expected increase in rainfall in some neighbouring regions from warming flows into the Nth Atlantic prevents the sinking from getting cold that carries Gulf Stream water deep and helps sustain that ocean circulation. ( http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14877 )

 

The flow of warm water that makes Europe's climate warmer than other regions at that latitude stops and significant cooling happens, which can widely affect global temperature and could persist for several decades before warming overwhelms that effect. Interesting that slowdown of AMOC is currently occurring and is implicated in the persistent cool spot in the Nth Atlantic - which in turn is implicated in recent decade of extreme and unusual weather in surrounding regions like Nth America and Europe.

 

PS - linking option (along with that whole tool bar) never appeared - perhaps because I'm using (much disliked) iPad? - so links are inserted directly but less neatly.

Edited by Ken Fabian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I saw that - perhaps one of the best graphic representations of historic global temperature so far. Maybe the IPCC could learn a thing or two.

 

Problem for the IPCC is that whatever they say it will be attacked, holes picked in it. any mistakes blown out of proportion, all possible ambiguities magnified etc. - I know exactly what you mean but the IPCC is on a hiding to nothing trying to prepare documents that vested interests do not attack regardless of the content, layout, and presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I found these links while deciding to take a look at climate change.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

 

I was wondering the vadidity of what they said.

 

Could you do me a favor in the future and when you introduce a subject don't just post links without giving a summary of the links. I never read links that are not supported by info. I want to know what you are talking about before going to any link. Could you at least copy and paste something important from the links? Thank you!

 

Here is how to do it:

A timeline of Earth's average temperature: http://xkcd.com/1732/

 

Very interesting, thanks for posting that. :)

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Skepticalscience is one of the best supported and most accurate climate sites out there with evidence supporting each claim. Is there a specific claim they've made which you're doubting?

 

It's pretty good but it's more politics and activism than science.

 

It's all about trying to scare people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's a scary topic. Do you have a particular example, as Phi asked?

 

It's only as scary as you make it. Much like snakes or spiders etc.

 

In terms of examples, for starters they have a long list of scientists they've dubbed as "climate misinformers", many of whom are still part of their 97% collective. How does that work?

 

And there's all that nonsense about correlations between political views and conspiratorial ideation, which is nothing more than peer reviewed fake science, employed as a tool to slur those whose views on climate and politics are not aligned with those of the site's founders.

 

It's kind of ironic that there's a large amount of energy directed towards combating the apparently global conspiracy of climate change denial.

 

When you see sites like this one (Sks) focus mostly on attacking a person or scientist's integrity rather than the actual substance of their arguments you know that it's politics parading as science.

 

Sadly, if the individuals who actually run that site are genuinely interested in combating climate change, they're effectively only making it more difficult for the world to reach universal consensus among voting citizens that action is very necessary as well as urgent.

 

If I'm in a conversation with climate skeptics, and I am regularly, I don't tell them that they're delusional, or conspiratorial, or right wing nut jobs, or anything else that's equally offensive. Even without qualifications in psychology I know that doing so would only reinforce their defiant denial of my own position.

Edited by Dr cool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only as scary as you make it. Much like snakes or spiders etc.

Venomous snakes can kill you. That's scary.

 

In terms of examples, for starters they have a long list of scientists they've dubbed as "climate misinformers", many of whom are still part of their 97% collective. How does that work?

Who are "they"? Skeptical science? I see 41 names; several of them are politicians, some scientists are not climate scientists. Which ones of those are part of the 97%?

 

And there's all that nonsense about correlations between political views and conspiratorial ideation, which is nothing more than peer reviewed fake science, employed as a tool to slur those views on climate and politics are not aligned with those of the site's founders.

I don't see what that has to do with climate science, which is the topic of this discussion.

 

It's kind of ironic that there's a large amount of energy directed towards combating the apparently global conspiracy of climate change denial.

Less or more than the money and energy that goes into the denialist propaganda?

 

When you see sites like this one (Sks) focus mostly on attacking a person or scientist's integrity rather than the actual substance of their arguments you know that it's politics parading as science.

Examples?

 

Have you seen what e.g. Michael Mann has been subjected to?

 

Sadly, if the individuals who actually run that site are genuinely interested in combating climate change, they're effectively only making it more difficult for the world to reach universal consensus among voting citizens that action is very necessary as well as urgent.

 

If I'm in a conversation with climate skeptics, and I am regularly, I don't tell them that they're delusional, or conspiratorial, or right wing nut jobs, or anything else that's equally offensive. Even without qualifications in psychology I know that doing so would only reinforce their defiant denial of my own position.

It's quite likely that they aren't skeptics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Venomous snakes can kill you. That's scary.

 

And yet snake handlers enjoy them.

 

Who are "they"? Skeptical science? I see 41 names; several of them are politicians, some scientists are not climate scientists. Which ones of those are part of the 97%?

 

There are many who are part of that 97%, including Spencer, Christy, Curry, Happer.....

 

By their own admissions they are very much a part of the 97% composite, and yet at the same time they're "climate misinformers", apparently.

 

I don't see what that has to do with climate science, which is the topic of this discussion.

 

That's fine, and underlines the subjective nature of discussions like this one.

 

Less or more than the money and energy that goes into the denialist propaganda?

 

I don't know and don't look for justifications

 

Have you seen what e.g. Michael Mann has been subjected to?

 

See above.

 

It's quite likely that they aren't skeptics.

 

Perhaps but who am I to judge?

Edited by Dr cool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many who are part of that 97%, including Spencer, Christy, Curry, Happer.....

 

By their own admissions they are very much a part of the 97% composite, and yet at the same time they're "climate misinformers", apparently.

 

 

Happer is not a climate scientist, so how did he "admit" to being one of the 97%?

 

What papers have Spencer, Christy or Curry written that would put them in the 97%? Because that's where the number comes from.

 

I don't know and don't look for justifications

 

 

See above.

So they're just baseless claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And yet snake handlers enjoy them.

 

So when all but a few of the snake handlers tell you about a snake so dangerous it scares even them, why do you believe the snake oil salesmen who are saying it's just a normal snake and perfectly safe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According the the World Health Organization, climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

 

Apparently the right to life and liberty isn't very high on the Republican totem pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the right to life and liberty isn't very high on the Republican totem pole.

 

Raising the price of corn to make ethanol gets rid of some of the world's poorest people. Another quarter million a year through climate change further reduces the number of people wanting a handout. You don't have to help people when they're dead. It's all about getting the less wealthy to pay the necessary taxes so the wealthy don't have to. This is called "being smart". This is called "good business".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Raising the price of corn to make ethanol gets rid of some of the world's poorest people. Another quarter million a year through climate change further reduces the number of people wanting a handout. You don't have to help people when they're dead. It's all about getting the less wealthy to pay the necessary taxes so the wealthy don't have to. This is called "being smart". This is called "good business".

It is often said, as justification for keeping high-band taxes lower, because it's those people/companies that create the jobs. I don't know what the solution is because companies can exploit invest elsewhere that is more welcoming to their strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't really see where this discussion has gone.

 

I think this is a big problem for conservatives who deny climate science based on ideology. They seem to become purposely obtuse about the rational explanations when they're given, and eventually just start claiming nobody refuted them so they must be right about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's only as scary as you make it. Much like snakes or spiders etc.

 

In terms of examples, for starters they have a long list of scientists they've dubbed as "climate misinformers", many of whom are still part of their 97% collective. How does that work?

 

And there's all that nonsense about correlations between political views and conspiratorial ideation, which is nothing more than peer reviewed fake science, employed as a tool to slur those whose views on climate and politics are not aligned with those of the site's founders.

 

It's kind of ironic that there's a large amount of energy directed towards combating the apparently global conspiracy of climate change denial.

 

When you see sites like this one (Sks) focus mostly on attacking a person or scientist's integrity rather than the actual substance of their arguments you know that it's politics parading as science.

 

Sadly, if the individuals who actually run that site are genuinely interested in combating climate change, they're effectively only making it more difficult for the world to reach universal consensus among voting citizens that action is very necessary as well as urgent.

 

If I'm in a conversation with climate skeptics, and I am regularly, I don't tell them that they're delusional, or conspiratorial, or right wing nut jobs, or anything else that's equally offensive. Even without qualifications in psychology I know that doing so would only reinforce their defiant denial of my own position.

 

Firstly you CANNOT argue with 99% of those who believe in AGW. Because the ONLY thing they know about it is an article in popular science. So it is like arguing with a Macaw.

 

Can you tell me what YOU personally know about AGW? Can you use your psychological training to suggest why we cannot tell what the climate will be in two monthss but they are telling us what it will be in 2050? And ONLY on the basis that the changes we observe now will continue unabated until then?

 

We started keeping hard records of the sea levels since the end of the civil war. Each year the sea has risen about 1 mm. Lately it has increased it's growth to 2 mm/yr. Why? Because the lower latitude glaciers are growing thin enough that they are semitransparent and so the solar energy not only is melting the tops of them but they are warming the rock beneath and melting from beneath as well. This will ONLY continue until the lower latitude glaciers have melted. As these glaciers retreat they ALSO are maintaining the upper ends because as everyone knows, it gets colder the higher altitude you are at. In short - the sea level increases are presently close to ceasing.

 

Did you see some of the responses here?

 

When explained that CO2 is and insignificant part of the atmosphere, that its chemical properties are that it absorbs and retains less heat than oxygen that is 2,000 times more common in the atmosphere and that its absorption bands are in a region where virtually no energy exists and that ONLY energy reflect from the Earth and NOT solar radiation. And that water which is the major component of the surface of this planet is by far the largest effect on the temperature. What's the response? That it doesn't take much cyanide to kill you.

 

Another repeats a comment that he heard somewhere else that he doesn't even understand - but what it means is if Iceland doesn't fit the AGW mold it just means that it doesn't reflect global conditions. Another rants that it is warming so much that the Northwest Passage is open. I STILL haven't an answer as to why it is named the Northwest PASSAGE. In 2012 it was frozen so solid that Russia lost one of the largest Ice Breaker's in there and American responded with our largest which is substantially larger and broke them out. The following year they sent again one of their largest Ice Breakers to resupply their Antarctic Research Station and it got stuck yet again. They sent another and it too was stuck. And again our largest had both to break them out but carry them within resupplying distance. The melting Antarctic Ice screamed in all of the headlines turned out to be very localized and caused by a just discovered unsea volcano.

 

Why did they change the name from Anthropogenic Global Warming to "climate change"? So they can blame any and ALL weather extremes upon it. You see, this year's coldest winter in over 20 years is caused by AGW or as it's called now "climate change". It simply isn't possible that this is nothing more than weather.

 

When we have geologic records showing that every thousand years we have these warm periods and people poo-poo that when this one occurs right on schedule what psychologically damaged personalities does that suggest?

 

It suggests nothing more than the Macaws repeating what they've been taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.