By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Climate Change, No peer reviewed evidence to prove it isn't happening

HappySqurriel on 17 August 2009
megaman79 said:
^ meanwhile the french are f----ed. Australia's wine regions are drying out also.

Which brings me to the bleeding obvious point, why are glaciers and the polar caps melting? Why are birds, in the United States, migrating further north.

@Sqrl and Happy Squirrel, Show me the source. I want to see where exactly you got those figures. Im still waiting for PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH. It can't be so difficult can it?

I want to see peer reviewed research demonstrating climate change that is based on an auditable dataset where the increase in temperature is greater than the error.

The first article I posted has a link, the USHCN data comes from Surfacestations.org, and the third graph comes from wattsupwiththat ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/11/26/the-scoop-on-satellite-temperature-data/ ) which is based on the work of Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama.



Around the Network
CrazyHorse on 17 August 2009
Sqrl said:
CrazyHorse said:
HappySqurriel said:

An interesting thing about science is that it is not the responsibility of people to show evidence that something is wrong; it is the responsibility of the scientist to provide auditable evidence that their claims are correct. The reason for this is simple, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something and therefore the evidence that supports its existence must be irrefutable.

The problem I demonstrated that you're unwilling to realize is that there is no valid auditable data that demonstrates a warming trend on the Earth that is outside of historic norms; which means that there is no scientific evidence for global warming at this point in time. The contiuned support of global warming as a threat is based entirely on belief and not on evidence which makes it a religion rather than a science.

Your first paragraph is spot on but I disagree somewhat with your second.

Based on recent climate data (over the last 1 million years or so) there is a strong correlation between increasing CO2 levels and incresing temperatures which cannot be ingnored. Although these previous increases have been caused by natural cycles, if rising CO2 levels drive temperatures to rise (as can be interpreted from the data) then a sudden increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from humans could cause a large increase in the Earth's temperature. This causation is not yet unequivocally proven but does provide evidence that it may be the case and that therefore that global warming is a very possible threat.

The problem is that evidence used to link C02 as a major driver of climate is based on low resolution data while supporting high resolution claims.

Or to put it another way we understand that water can absorb C02 and its ability to do so is directly affected by its temperature.  Lower temperatures allow it to absorb more and higher temperatures allow it hold less - thus at higher temperatures the ocean "outgases" C02.  We know that there are massive reservoires of C02 in the oceans based on this noncontroversial and well understood mechanic.

Equally understood is that greenhouse gases can trap heat, this is irrefutable and easily proven in a lab.

The sleight of hand comes when you then try to say greenhouse gases can signicantly warm the planet as a whole in the concentrations seen at the present and possible in the near future.

This is where that older low resolution data comes into play, what this means is that there is a sizeable MOE in comparing temperature to C02 in proxies used to research these values in the distant past.  Which came first is the subject of some uncertainty but we already have a demonstrable and incontraversible mechanism for explaining how temperature could drive C02 on the scales required...we don't have such a mechanism for C02 driving climate however.  In fact what we have for that is a series of models, made by modelers who readily admit they are prone to error and misleading predictions.

I assume we are both talking about the same data set here, the Vostok Ice Core. Whilst I am aware there are obviously error margins in the data, especially as the data is from one region and so is difficult to exprapolate to an Earth wide climate model for the past, I don't think it can be argued that there is not a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature.

The relationship between the two is the big question and as you point out there is an initial mechanism for rising temperatures to cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around (milankovitch cycles). However, even if an initial temperature increase causes CO2 to increase you can't disscount the possibility that this causes a feedback effect where the CO2 then drives temperature (as it is proven that greenhouse gases do trap heat). Again, I agree that a question remains over the severity to which this occurs.

So I still feel that there is evidence to suggest that anthropogenic greenhouse gases MAY increase temperatures and that money needs to continue into this field (as well as procautions taken against significant gas emissions).



TheRealMafoo on 17 August 2009
Sardauk said:
NKAJ said:
TheRealMafoo said:
LOL

You said it yourself HS, it's a religion, and religions are based of beliefs, not facts. You can talk to MegaMan until your blue in the face, and you him, you will always be wrong. No matter how much sense you make.

Climate cghange is not a religon

No but it affects US-christian's faith apparently...

But I'm an atheist, so how does that apply?

Climate change is real. Man making it, is a religion.



HappySqurriel on 17 August 2009
highwaystar101 said:

I don't understand what the fuss is about CO2, so many more potent gases cause climate change. Methane is 50 times more potent than CO2 and when I was doing my BSc I briefly studied a chemical that is 17,500 more potent and the amount we produce is rising exponentially year on year... and that chemical isn't even recognised or studied often.

The real problem is that we have no way of quantifying the effect humans have on climate change. It occurs to me when I read these debates that it's foolish to deny that man made emissions are effecting climate change, because they are. The real debate should be to what extent they are effecting climate change. Does mankind effect climate change in a small/unnoticable way (that's what I think) or are they effecting climate change in a large/we're fucked way?

Had to get that off my chest, it's just my 2c.

First off, isn't methane (roughly) 22 times as potent as CO2?

Now, the reason why no one focuses on methane or other potential drivers of a greenhouse effect is because Global Warming (or "Climate Change" now that the warming trend is not that prevalent) is not about protecting the environment; it is about using people's dislike of energy companies in general (and the oil industry in particular) to promote a political agenda.

 



CrazyHorse on 17 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
CrazyHorse said:
HappySqurriel said:
megaman79 said:
Off topic subjects, easy bait. How about somebody shows me actual peer reviewed global statistics or evidence to refute these claims.

An interesting thing about science is that it is not the responsibility of people to show evidence that something is wrong; it is the responsibility of the scientist to provide auditable evidence that their claims are correct. The reason for this is simple, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something and therefore the evidence that supports its existence must be irrefutable.

The problem I demonstrated that you're unwilling to realize is that there is no valid auditable data that demonstrates a warming trend on the Earth that is outside of historic norms; which means that there is no scientific evidence for global warming at this point in time. The contiuned support of global warming as a threat is based entirely on belief and not on evidence which makes it a religion rather than a science.

Your first paragraph is spot on but I disagree somewhat with your second.

Based on recent climate data (over the last 1 million years or so) there is a strong correlation between increasing CO2 levels and incresing temperatures which cannot be ingnored. Although these previous increases have been caused by natural cycles, if rising CO2 levels drive temperatures to rise (as can be interpreted from the data) then a sudden increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from humans could cause a large increase in the Earth's temperature. This causation is not yet unequivocally proven but does provide evidence that it may be the case and that therefore that global warming is a very possible threat.

... and what if the correlation between the rise in CO2 and temperature comes from increased temperature causing increased CO2 output? What if the correlation between the rise in CO2 and Temperature comes from both being the effect caused by some other change to our climate system?

There is a natural process where the ocean sequesters carbon dioxide for long periods of time and releases it that is not well understood; and it is highly likely that or lack of understanding of what drives this process is the root of the correlation between historic CO2 and temperature levels.

This is very likely. The climate data fits in almost perfectly with cycles in the variation of the Earth's orbit. These orbital changes likely result in an inital temperature increase which warms the oceans and releases CO2 (as well as many other factors). The problem is that CO2 and temperature levels continue to rise and so it is possible that the CO2 is creating a feedback in which the Earth continues to heat up, releasing more CO2, causing the Earth to heat even more. Therefore, if this is case, it is not unreasonable to assume that an increase in CO2 (and other gases) will create an unatural increase in temperature. There are a lot of 'ifs' in there but the potential problem is too severe to ignore.



Around the Network
CrazyHorse on 17 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
highwaystar101 said:

I don't understand what the fuss is about CO2, so many more potent gases cause climate change. Methane is 50 times more potent than CO2 and when I was doing my BSc I briefly studied a chemical that is 17,500 more potent and the amount we produce is rising exponentially year on year... and that chemical isn't even recognised or studied often.

The real problem is that we have no way of quantifying the effect humans have on climate change. It occurs to me when I read these debates that it's foolish to deny that man made emissions are effecting climate change, because they are. The real debate should be to what extent they are effecting climate change. Does mankind effect climate change in a small/unnoticable way (that's what I think) or are they effecting climate change in a large/we're fucked way?

Had to get that off my chest, it's just my 2c.

First off, isn't methane (roughly) 22 times as potent as CO2?

Now, the reason why no one focuses on methane or other potential drivers of a greenhouse effect is because Global Warming (or "Climate Change" now that the warming trend is not that prevalent) is not about protecting the environment; it is about using people's dislike of energy companies in general (and the oil industry in particular) to promote a political agenda.

 

It's also because we have a decent data set showing that temperature and CO2 share a causal relationship and so it is easier to compare modern CO2 values with past ones when making predicitions. While there is a lot of political agenda in these debates there is also some real science in there too.



megaman79 on 17 August 2009

The problem is you have spent so long saying it isn't real right now nobody believes you. You critisize the data from our end but praise the honesty and integrity of your own severely under funded and non peer reviewed research at your end. Its bullshit.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Sqrl on 17 August 2009
megaman79 said:
^ meanwhile the french are f----ed. Australia's wine regions are drying out also.

Which brings me to the bleeding obvious point, why are glaciers and the polar caps melting? Why are birds, in the United States, migrating further north.

@Sqrl and Happy Squirrel, Show me the source. I want to see where exactly you got those figures. Im still waiting for PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH. It can't be so difficult can it?

So how many links in how many threads do I have to go through before you address some of it?  I gave links to papers in the last thread..did you read any of them?

No seriously, answer, did you read ANY of those papers in the last thread?  If not why should I go dig them up again?

Your entire deal here is to plug your ears and refuse to hear, I've linked numerous papers numerous times on this site in threads you've been part of, but here you are again asking for more....why should I waste my time if you're just going to ignore it and plug your ears when I do link it? 

The problem is you don't want to find what is true - you want to find the answer you want.

You mentioned the last thread in this one, so here.  That is my link.  Go back to that page and read the 800+ page paper (fully sourced/cited) I linked to in that thread.  When you stop being lazy about the issue and start reading for yourself rather than demand demand and plug ears when confronted...when you do that bare minimum of intellectual curiosity, then you can demand I link something more than the thousands of pages I've already linked.

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
highwaystar101 on 17 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
highwaystar101 said:

I don't understand what the fuss is about CO2, so many more potent gases cause climate change. Methane is 50 times more potent than CO2 and when I was doing my BSc I briefly studied a chemical that is 17,500 more potent and the amount we produce is rising exponentially year on year... and that chemical isn't even recognised or studied often.

The real problem is that we have no way of quantifying the effect humans have on climate change. It occurs to me when I read these debates that it's foolish to deny that man made emissions are effecting climate change, because they are. The real debate should be to what extent they are effecting climate change. Does mankind effect climate change in a small/unnoticable way (that's what I think) or are they effecting climate change in a large/we're fucked way?

Had to get that off my chest, it's just my 2c.

First off, isn't methane (roughly) 22 times as potent as CO2?

Now, the reason why no one focuses on methane or other potential drivers of a greenhouse effect is because Global Warming (or "Climate Change" now that the warming trend is not that prevalent) is not about protecting the environment; it is about using people's dislike of energy companies in general (and the oil industry in particular) to promote a political agenda.

 

I dunno, New Scientist told me 50 times. Ah well, at least we can agree it is supposed to be more potent.

As per your second point, climate change is the term I use because I recognise that a rise in temperature would not be the only effect on the weather if a significant effect ever occurs. Anyway, everything has a political agenda nowdays, and it is true that the effects have been widely exagerated to a worst case scenario by the press and politicians to use it for there own personal gains. But I still believe that significant evidence exists to prove it is happening and I believe that the true debate lies in 'how much it's happening' and not 'if it's happening'. The real problem is that we can't accurately measure it IMO.

 



CrazyHorse on 17 August 2009
highwaystar101 said:

I don't understand what the fuss is about CO2, so many more potent gases cause climate change. Methane is 50 times more potent than CO2 and when I was doing my BSc I briefly studied a chemical that is 17,500 more potent and the amount we produce is rising exponentially year on year... and that chemical isn't even recognised or studied often.

The real problem is that we have no way of quantifying the effect humans have on climate change. It occurs to me when I read these debates that it's foolish to deny that man made emissions are effecting climate change, because they are. The real debate should be to what extent they are effecting climate change. Does mankind effect climate change in a small/unnoticable way (that's what I think) or are they effecting climate change in a large/we're fucked way?

Had to get that off my chest, it's just my 2c.

Completely agree with the part in red.

 

The part in blue - This is the problem when science gets political. All sides try to 'win' and the real science is often ignored. Made worse by the media getting ahold of the most extreme scenarios as that makes more interesting news.