Climate change apathy Ragnarok thread - The Bear and Badger

cockbeard

So why do all these graphs keep showing the last 80 years? Give me data, because I swear the earth was a lot hotter than it was today around 4 billion years ago. That graph earlier shows an increase of 0.35-0.4 degrees. Also I've only just noticed that these measurements were taken at Mauna Loa, might the fact that it's been dormant for something like 30 years explain the recent flat spot in temperature

Funkstain

Yes it was a lot hotter 4Billion years ago. You have any relatives from back then?

To find data on global temperatures measured across massive numbers of locations, different methods of measuring, different places in the atmosphere, oceans, land, and pre-historical records from ice cores and tree rings, just google it. There are literally unending links to good material.

Try Skezza's link, actually, for a good start with references.

cockbeard

Just I'd expect atmospheric CO2 to be higher above a volcano than not above a volcano

Yossarian

Funkstain wrote:

To find data on global temperatures measured across massive numbers of locations, different methods of measuring, different places in the atmosphere, oceans, land, and pre-historical records from ice cores and tree rings, just google it. There are literally unending links to good material.

Funkstain

Yep me too. CONSENSUS

dynamiteReady

Funkstain wrote:

And my question was, and still is, what is the correlate? Co2s? That's disputable, the chart makes that an easy challenge.

So to recap. You agree climate change is happening right now. You agree that it is happening very quickly. Correct? So you've moved on to the third question, which was "are humans responsible for at least a significant amount of this recent change", and you have dodged it, and gone straight on to CO2. Whether CO2 has an effect on climate is utterly and totally indisputable. The greenhouse effect is a real thing, which keeps us alive, and frankly bugger off back to GSCE Science if you don't get that. As for the chart somehow showing that CO2 is not a major, or the major factor in increased temperatures, I don't understand what you mean. It shows that the temperature has gone up and stayed up. There are questions over why it didn't continue to go up, and they have been addressed in various ways as has been pointed out to you. But in any case the chart provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever that CO2 is not a major factor in climate change. Next:

The birth rate is a strong one, but we haven't examined that yet.

I'm at a loss about this one. Why would birth rate have an effect on global climate? And how can you show (i.e.: not just conjecture or theorising, but actual evidence-based research) that this effect is real and more important than, say, CO2?

Agriculture is also a major one...

Um, agriculture is cited as a cause for climate change because DUM DUM DUUUUM it is responsible for vast amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Are you actually arguing against your self now?

And how do we set up 'controls' for lab work in an experiment performed on a living system? How do we know if this pattern of climate change has anything to do with us, and not an unknown cosmic phenomenon? And how do we explain ice ages of the past? Do you think we may see another ice age in the future? There's still a great deal of dispute about the cause of the ice age, and that's in the benefit of hindsight...

What you are asking for is scientific research. Which is what has been done. And the best evidence, analysed by the best minds, has led to the conclusion that this time, humans are having a major effect. What I love about this is the dichotomy you seem unaware of: on the one hand, you demand a simple fact-based explanation for everything otherwise there will always be doubt. On the other: there can never be fact-based explanation because it's too complex man! brilliant, i mean brilliant rhetoric you should write for the daily telegraph.

What's wrong with asking questions aout the subject? I'm trying to say that it's impossible to be certain about this, and that the intelligent thing to do, is to learn more...

There's nothing wrong with questions. And there's nothing wrong with doing research. You should take your own advice and actually read the science (NOT the telegraph). It is impossible to be certain about things in science, yes. What it is not impossible to be is pretty damn sure. Do you want to argue against a lot of scientists saying they are pretty damn sure? On what basis? With what evidence?

What I'm actually saying, is that there's no widely accepted theory that explains how human behaviour is effecting climate change.

Thats an absolute fact.

Even the most ardent fanatic will tell you that even the most conservative model to affirm a AGW outcome is hypothetical.

Cases against are similarly fuzzy.

Other, possibly related arguments, like the negative effects of unchecked consumption though, are very clear concerns.

Those concerns are very closely related to the 'suspected' causes of AGW, so we're in agreement on action, but not the catalyst.

...

Fossil fuels are dirty, and they have a clear, demonstrable impact on our physical health.
Yes. I want to see an effort to cut down on their use. Perhaps even ban them, if alternatives prove to be useful.

Fossil fuels may or may not have an impact on the global weather system, though?...
Exactly.

Funkstain

dynamiteReady wrote:

What I'm actually saying, is that there's no widely accepted theory that explains how human behaviour is effecting climate change. Thats an absolute fact.

Ah, we get to the rub. There is, in fact, a widely accepted theory (at least by climate scientists). Or I should say there are a number of accepted theories. Which centre on human activity increasing the greenhouse effect. If by "not widely accepted" you are talking about non-climate scientists, then OK, sure. I know that I'd rather be on the side of the experts who spend their life working at these theories, than the relatively uneducated agenda-pushers.

Even the most ardent fanatic will tell you that even the most conservative model to affirm a AGW outcome is hypothetical.

You never know, it could turn out to be an invisible radiator somewhere. The point of science is to find the best theory to fit the facts. There is no better theory, at this time, than greenhouse effect to explain climate change's current rapidity, and no better theory at this time than humans contributing to this.

As I've said already, I don't believe that you'll convince enough people to change anything about their behaviour if you don't make them understand the very real risk they run. Just saying coal is bad mmkay seems to have no effect whatsoever. Perhaps saying you will all die will have more effect.

Vela

dynamiteReady wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

You see, I'm still waiting for someone to explain this chart. Is the data fake? I'd say it's a good starting point to explore both sides of the argument... It looks like there's a correlate there. A pattern too possibly... There's a steady rise there, but where's the explanation for the fall? Were we planting more trees, or something? And what of the blantant spikes? There will surely be some explanation for those. What's wrong with wanting to know more?

@dynamiteReady

First off, sorry if you feel you're being bullied in the argument. I don't doubt your sincerity in the discussion, but it is frustrating for many to separate your posts from the person making them because you are essentially reposting arguments that disingenuous skeptics run their campaign on. These comments get parroted in News Ltd comments sections and you can see how they might instantly attract a bit of disdain.

Anyway, to address your query:

1. I found this was a great article to explain why your chart is misleading. If you've heard of the "pause" in warming, that is what your chart is about.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-03/jericho-government-goes-cold-on-global-warming/5714026

2. Also, the Climate Council in Aus has some explanations on why the pause has been observed. It still doesn't mean there isn't extra heat being stored on Earth, it just means we aren't yet feeling it because of where it is stored.
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/the-pause-in-warming-myth-debunked

3. This article also has some useful explanations on how modern records are reconciled with pre-scientific methods (tree rings, ice cores etc). http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

I'm not far out of bed though so leave me a tag if you need more reading or want some more back and forth discussion.

cockbeard

All these graphs are basically gubbins

So over 100 years it looks like it's rising but only 0.4 degrees

however looks scarier over a thousand years

Yet go back further and you kinda think, bothered

Even further it looks perfectly normal, and pretty cyclic

That shit be data, I'm neither trying to disprove or prove global warming, I'm simply saying that practising good husbandry can only be a good thing, however you manage to convince people of their responsibilities

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

What I'm actually saying, is that there's no widely accepted theory that explains how human behaviour is effecting climate change.

Yes there is. 97% of climate scientists who express an opinion on the cause agree. How much more widely accepted do you want?

Thats an absolute fact.

No it's not.

Even the most ardent fanatic will tell you that even the most conservative model to affirm a AGW outcome is hypothetical.

Theories about the future are hypothetical? Yes, I do agree.

Cases against are similarly fuzzy.

No, they aren't. Disinformation is not fuzzy information. There is no equivalence between your motley bunch of geologists, ecologists and dowsers and the world's leading climatologists. None at all.

As I say, the only explanation that I have for your position is wilful ignorance. Everything you've thrown up to try to counter these arguments has been torn down in a few clicks of a mouse, meanwhile you continue to completely ignore the mountain of available, peer-reviewed evidence from people who work in this field in preference for whichever piece of denialist claptrap you happen across next.

You have nothing that supports your view.

Skerret

Vela wrote:

I'm not far out of bed though so leave me a tag if you need more reading or want some more back and forth discussion.

Yeah hurry up, I'm getting sleepy.

cockbeard

Besides aren't we due an ice age in 1500 or 15000 years anyway, I forget which, sorry

dynamiteReady

Funkstain wrote:

You never know, it could turn out to be an invisible radiator somewhere.

Well...

Funkstain wrote:

The point of science is to find the best theory to fit the facts.

Science is a search for facts... The truth, actually.

@Vela - That's better. No recourse to a character assasination, no name calling, some facts, and some sources to follow...

Brooks

I kinda hope Griff's hot space has staying power.

Yossarian

Cocko, nobody's arguing that the climate doesn't fluctuate, temperature fluctuations don't disprove AGW.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

You never know, it could turn out to be an invisible radiator somewhere.

Well...

Funkstain wrote:

The point of science is to find the best theory to fit the facts.

Science is a search for facts... The truth, actually. @Vela - That's better. No recourse to a character assasination, no name calling, some facts, and some sources to follow...

I gave you facts, I gave you a source, you ignored them.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

Thats an absolute fact.

I'm sorry on this one, Yoss.

The only constant here, is that the people who actually do the science have learnt a lot, but cannot claim absolute surety.

Brooks

Guys I eat a lot of protein every day, where am I supposed to get this from without meat. Chicken and tuna are like a quarter or more of protein per gram.

Lord_Griff

"Hot Space: The Invisible Radiator" - by Lord_Griff (c) 2015.

In all good book stores.

Also Cock's graph implies that the Earth should on average be c3 degrees cooler than it is now (over 450k years)

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Thats an absolute fact.

I'm sorry on this one, Yoss. The only constant here, is that the people who actually do the science have learnt a lot, but cannot claim absolute surety.

That's your quote, not mine, and the 'fact' that you were claiming was that there's no scientific consensus. There is.

Skerret

Brooks wrote:

I kinda hope Griff's Hot Space has staying power.

Capitalised for Maximum Impact.

Skerret

Brooks wrote:

Guys I eat a lot of protein every day, where am I supposed to get this from without meat. Chicken and tuna are like a quarter or more of protein per gram.

Fermented soybeans, dig in. Also peanuts are about 28% protein.

Brooks

I figured the other Australian would get that gag first.

monkey

Bah fuckitall

Skerret

I need to post less.

Yossarian

Lord_Griff wrote:

"Hot Space: The Invisible Radiator" - by Lord_Griff (c) 2015. In all good book stores. Also Cock's graph implies that the Earth should on average be c3 degrees cooler than it is now (over 450k years)

Really? Heh.

Funkstain

dynamiteReady wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

You never know, it could turn out to be an invisible radiator somewhere.

Well...

Funkstain wrote:

The point of science is to find the best theory to fit the facts.

Science is a search for facts... The truth, actually. @Vela - That's better. No recourse to a character assasination, no name calling, some facts, and some sources to follow...

At no point have I insulted you. A bit of snark (go back to school if you don't believe in greenhouse effect).

To keep things impersonal, there is no difference between my statement about science and your statement. Search for truth is achieved via theories and obtaining experimental empirical data that supports or disproves the theory. Upon disproof, theory is either improved or discarded and replaced. So I don't understand what your point is, with that statement.

As for Cocko's long term graphs. The issue is the speed at which the climate is warming. This is not precedented. You can just about see it in your second graph, right at the end, where the line appears to go vertically up. To be clear, cyclically we should be at around the peak of a warm period. Instead, we're rapidly going higher, faster than ever before.

And Yoss is right too - just because there have been cycles before doesn't mean this one isn't different, and indeed the climate scientists are pretty damn sure it is different.

dynamiteReady

The levels of sensationalism out there... It's nuts.

http://iceagenow.info/2014/01/bbc-daily-mail-warn-mini-ice-age/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.html

Brooks

Skerret wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Guys I eat a lot of protein every day, where am I supposed to get this from without meat. Chicken and tuna are like a quarter or more of protein per gram.

Fermented soybeans, dig in. Also peanuts are about 28% protein.

I was gonna holler at this and say hey but tofu only has like 10g of protein per 100 grams compared to chicken but it's also half the calories or something so I guess I can just eat more of it anyway. Okay I'll give this a go.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

The levels of sensationalism out there... It's nuts. http://iceagenow.info/2014/01/bbc-daily-mail-warn-mini-ice-age/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

Are you going to try to link the warming of the last however many years to sunspots? If so, it's a dead end.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories