Man-Made Climate Change ... take 78

[Flames89]

I look forward to hearing the critics of the study referenced in this article...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0215fddc-2...077b07658.html

"Scientists have been able to say with virtual certainty for the first time that the climate change observed over the past four decades is man made and not the result of natural phenomena."

"The new study raises the likelihood of “unnatural” causes of global warming to near certainty."

Yet, we with our engineering, polticial science, finance, arts, MBAs etc degrees are able to disagree with the vast majority of PHD scientists in this area ...

[Displaced Flames fan]

That isn't a report. It's an article, and an extremely vague one, announcing the report. There's absolutely no meat provided by the link.

I love how these things always refer to 'scientists'. What kind of scientists? Meteorologists? Climatologists? Arctic ecologists? Pharmacists? Nuclear physicists?

We are never provided with the pertinent information. I'm also getting sick of articles that say scientists 'have proven' something. Science has never proven anything.

Not saying the report isn't valid, but we need a whole hell of a lot more information than is provided at the link before we can start to differentiate this from anything else that's out there.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That isn't a report. It's an article, and an extremely vague one, announcing the report. There's absolutely no meat provided by the link.

I love how these things always refer to 'scientists'. What kind of scientists? Meteorologists? Climatologists? Arctic ecologists? Pharmacists? Nuclear physicists?

We are never provided with the pertinent information. I'm also getting sick of articles that say scientists 'have proven' something. Science has never proven anything.

Not saying the report isn't valid, but we need a whole hell of a lot more information than is provided at the link before we can start to differentiate this from anything else that's out there.

You can look at the abstract for the original study here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ature06937.pdf

The full text is by subscription only, so unless you're affiliated with a University Library, you probably can't get it. If you're genuinely interested, PM me and I'll email you the pdf.

[mykalberta]

So I assume this study 100% says that without man on earth the earth wouldnt be warming at all and wouldnt have the patches in the ozone layer?

If it doesnt say that then its useless. Of course man is responsible for some of it, what we need "science" to say is that man is responsible for all of it. And if so then man alone will fix it - and never in the history of the world has a fix where man reduces or stops something fixed anything. It will be up to man to solve this issue either by repairing the ozone or by leaving.

[Gozer]

Barry Brook, director of climate change research at the University of Adelaide, said: “[We should] consider that there has been only 0.75ºC of temperature change so far, yet the expectation for this century is four to nine times that amount.

Irrefutable.

[Metro Gnome]

How about people refute the claims in this article, MADE BY REAL SCIENTISTS, that the Globe is heading to a new ice age...THANKS TO THE INNATE EVIL OF MAN:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

That's right...in 1975 everyone was certain that the Earth was heading for another ice-age (thanks to people's activities, naturally). Of course, the trend completely reversed itself in the 90's. Didn't stop fear mongers and the media from switching the catastrophe narrative to "run away global warming".

Anyone claiming to KNOW what's going to happen in the next hundred years, particularly as it pertains to chaos systems like weather and human activity, is full of crap.

Also, check out some of the proposed "solutions" mentioned at the bottom of that article:

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve."

Good thing they didn't panic and implement these measures, hey?

[Claeren]

^ That is why it is called 'climate change' and not 'global warming'.

Further, it is the pace of change that is alarming, not that there is a change at all.



Claeren.

[ken0042]

That is what concerns me; history is full of other stories where scientists were dead wrong; even though they had the scientific proof available at the time on their side.

I recently watched a show about the plagues in Europe, and it showed one in London around the 17th century. Back then all the dogs and cats were street animals, and they concluded that seeing as the incidents of plague were where the concrentrations of dogs were high; they offered a bounty to get people to kill as many dogs as they could. Unfortunately the problem was the plague being spread by rats and their fleas, and the dogs were going to where all the rats were because they were good eating. By killing the dogs, the rats flourished and so did the plague.

One might argue (quite correctly) that we are more advanced than our 17th century ancestors, but I wonder if my great-great-great grandkids will be watching some 22nd century documentary and wondering how we could be so silly not to notice that global warming was being caused by increased cell phone usage. (Or insert some other thing that hasn't been considered yet.)

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Yet, we with our engineering, polticial science, finance, arts, MBAs etc degrees are able to disagree with the vast majority of PHD scientists in this area ...

Let me preface this by saying that I have two degrees in earth science.

I do believe that there is a SLIGHT increase in the rate of global warming due to anthropogenic effects, however, I do not think that the human impact is large enough to warrant a change in lifestyle for the planet.

When the earth gets out of equillibrium enough, it will balance out. That is just how it works. Did you know that the earth naturally cycles between high and low average temperatures? And before you say "yes, but it's never been THIS hot," what's to say that in 50 years we don't plunge into the coldest ice-age ever recorded?

Think of the earth as a spinning top, and right now it's just wobbling. It will continue to do this for the rest of all our lives, so get used to temperature and weather flucuations. It's been this way for 5 billion years so far.

This article won't make me believe in anthropogenically caused global warming anymore than a theoretical article that said we had nothing to do with it!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Barry Brook, director of climate change research at the University of Adelaide, said: “[We should] consider that there has been only 0.75ºC of temperature change so far, yet the expectation for this century is four to nine times that amount.

Irrefutable.

I am optimistic the average global temp. won't increase THAT much in the next century. We are already finding new energy sources that will not rely on fossil fuels for transportation and such. But if Earth does become a scorched, desolate wasteland, I will be dead by the time that happens anyhow.
Interestingly, I read an article a few weeks back that was talking about putting these turbines on the floor of the ocean in the middle of the Atlantic that produce electricity from the force of the tide. Anyways, I think we are headed in the right direction.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That isn't a report. It's an article, and an extremely vague one, announcing the report. There's absolutely no meat provided by the link.

I love how these things always refer to 'scientists'. What kind of scientists? Meteorologists? Climatologists? Arctic ecologists? Pharmacists? Nuclear physicists?

We are never provided with the pertinent information. I'm also getting sick of articles that say scientists 'have proven' something. Science has never proven anything.

Not saying the report isn't valid, but we need a whole hell of a lot more information than is provided at the link before we can start to differentiate this from anything else that's out there.

Science has never proven anything is a philosophical position that is dangerous for you side. If I can lay you on the other side. That means that by proxy those that refute climate change have also never proven that it isn't occurring and by that I mean being contributed to by man by things such as carbon emissions etc.
Also I'm just as sick as you are, that at every report, article, paper, statement whatever, that comes out being belittled because every scientist isn't on board. What other section of society requires 100% buy in before action? Wars are started with much less approval, public policy, parenting styles, marriage rights. Every issue on earth has detractors but still laws and actions are put into place to move on them with out the approval of all.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

How about people refute the claims in this article, MADE BY REAL SCIENTISTS, that the Globe is heading to a new ice age...THANKS TO THE INNATE EVIL OF MAN:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

That's right...in 1975 everyone was certain that the Earth was heading for another ice-age (thanks to people's activities, naturally). Of course, the trend completely reversed itself in the 90's. Didn't stop fear mongers and the media from switching the catastrophe narrative to "run away global warming".

Anyone claiming to KNOW what's going to happen in the next hundred years, particularly as it pertains to chaos systems like weather and human activity, is full of crap.

Also, check out some of the proposed "solutions" mentioned at the bottom of that article:

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve."

Good thing they didn't panic and implement these measures, hey?

So.... because some scientists were wrong in 1975, that means most scientists can't be right in 2008?

As for what the scientists are claiming in the article--I suggest you read it over. It's heady stuff, but nowhere do they "claim to KNOW what's going to happen in the next 100 years." I'm not going to get into the details--I'm not even qualified to read the thing let alone represent what they're saying in any detail--but I'm more inclined to believe current science than an argument about something some dude said in 1975. No offense.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Claeren

^ That is why it is called 'climate change' and not 'global warming'.

Further, it is the pace of change that is alarming, not that there is a change at all.



Claeren.

So what you are saying is that raised CO2 is a cause of climate change and can also be used to explain why it recently snowed in May and was very cold?

[Flames89]

I just don't get on this ONE issue people are so sceptical. The vast majority of scientists have concluded that we are having measurable effects on the earth. Even lobbyists for the other side, have said that they are lobbyists though believe in man-made climate change.

I believed my physics teacher when he taught me how gravity works, I just trusted him and all the scientists he referenced. I believed in Darwinism in Biology, because of my teacher and the scientists he referenced. I didn't question organic chemistry, for the same reasons.

Now ALL of those theories are likely more mind-altering and could be seemed "far-fetched" than the idea of us having an effect on climate. We see the pictures, we have records of melting, we have THOUSANDS of scientists agreeing ... but because you don't like the answer you say "bah, this is wrong".

Odd...

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...9-b22c5f2c5df9

"The problem is that Solomon's "deniers" don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about the details."

"But try as he might, Solomon fails to find a single reputable character who will contest the major hypothesis: The human burning of fossil fuels is affecting the world's climate in an unprecedented and dangerous way."

"Instead, Solomon has rounded up the usual suspects and revelled in the usual arguments. He quotes Dr. Edward Wegman's criticism of the famous hockey stick graph without admitting that Wegman testified before a U.S. Senate committee that he believes the globe is warming and that humans are to blame."

[MelBridgeman]

Science is only limited to what we know, and we know every little about anything

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Science is only limited to what we know, and we know every little about anything

Your point in this context?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Science is only limited to what we know, and we know every little about anything

Yeah but it's proven to be a very valuable tool with what little we do know. Eliminating many diseases and doubling life expectancy in a few generations of history, allowing us to fly and go to space.

Your comment doesn't really say anything for or against any of the stuides or ideas.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flames89

I just don't get on this ONE issue people are so sceptical.

Cause significant amounts of money are involved for may industries and countries, and because it means more responsibility and a little hard work for everyone in general.

People don't like being told they are part of the problem, and industry sure doesn't like losing money.

While there may have been cause for much skepticism even a few short years ago I'm pretty sure the majority of skepticism is rooted in selfishness or plain ignorance, pure and simple.

[Daradon]

Ultimately whether one wants to believe in climate change and our role in it or not, I don't think you find anyone who wouldn't disagree that in general we pollute and harm the environment too much. So why wouldn't they want to try and clean up their acts?

Climate change brings the problem to the forefront, and makes it an issue now. That's why people resist.

With no deadline and no big problem, people are content going along their polluting ways, even though they know it's not technically right or appropriate.

It's like speeding. (Most) Everyone does it and they know it's wrong. But it's only a issue when you have to change your behaviour or take responsibility.

[Displaced Flames fan]

89-it's not blind skepticism because I don't like the conclusions. That's a rather easy way out you took there. Again, you keep referring to scientists. WHICH scientists? What are their fields? Are they truly qualified to be studying this kind of stuff? What do they stand to gain by coming to these conclusions? Grant money? Governmental positions? These are serious and legitimate questions that should be asked about every scientific study, not just gloabal warming studies.

I think planetary climate change is such a vast concept. I don't think there is a study possible that can account for all the variables in play. To compare basic physics and organic chemistry to studies on global warming is laughable at best. Those sciences have been studied on a giant scale for centuries. This has been studied for less than one and on a very, very small scale.

I think the dialogue about it is great and productive. Whether we really are the cause of any climate change...and to what degree...really doesn't matter if we are taking steps to eliminate things that can't be good whether they raise the global temperature or not. The use of fossil fuels has very little positive to offer outside of the energy it generates. Humans should be moving away from that regardless of global warming and I believe we are.