Climate Change Discussion.

Post Reply New Topic

I think the one good thing about all the climate change issue is that it has educated most of us about how climate works, and how delicate the balance of nature is on Earth.

The issue of climate has been thoroughly politicized. You are not not seeing good science being brought to bear.

ruveyn

The politicians involved seem to be mostly on the denialist camp... Them making it an issue is why nothing will be done either way, if anything could be done for that matter, which I doubt. Most policies that advocate cleaner air in cities and better waste disposal are beneficial either way

So what exactly is wrong with their methods? And just because some douchebags choose to misrepresent a scientist's findings, it doesn't mean that scientist intended for his findings to be represented that way. And I highly doubt as many as 93% are in on some socialist conspiracy. The bigger a conspiracy is, the harder it is to keep it a secret.

Statistical Models have too many adjustable parameters. They can be made to fit any data. The physics underlying climate and weather is non-linear chaotic dynamics which is not nearly as well developed as the linear dynamics underlying, say, quantum theory. To put it briefly, we have climate models
but not real climate science. In addition to which the natural drivers of climate change have not been thoroughly eliminated as possible causes for the warming epoch we are now in. There is little motivation to do so, since the whole issue is being driven by politics rather than science.

ruveyn

I suppose we're reluctant to acknowledge overpopulation because it's a problem that has no good solution.

Interesting. It's much more valid than the old "But the planet has always been through natural cycles!" argument and I'm interested to see what those who believe in climate change and are knowledgeable have to say about it.

Well, I'm no climatologist but I do have some knowledge on the subject and I accept climate change though not necessarily anthropogenic warming. Ruveyn is correct, particularly regarding the fact that natural drivers have not been eliminated as possible causes of warming.

Kooky lie.

It's been both since at least 1988 when the IPCC formed. Guess what CC stands for.

And of course it's not cooling.

They have :/

Well actually, of course natural events cause warming. The thing is that the models consider them. It is not like the climate scientists were making their models without considering the most obvious sources of heat and then some dude said "BUT WHAT ABOUT VOLCANOS" and we had the scientists telling to themselves "FU WE FORGOT TEH VOLCANOS".


When the models consider only natural cycles, they fail to predict the increase in temperature. When you include greenhouse effect, they more accurately predict the increase in temperature (in this case predict, means match the results we acquired through measurements.


I cannot underline and bold enough when I say that at this point in history, believing that there is no climate change would be absolute idiocy and ignorance. It was years ago in which it was clear that a) The Earth temperatures were warming and that b) The change in temperature did not match any known natural cycle. And it is now clear, with further research from even former skeptics that the cause is man-made. There is really no other way around unless you are afraid of science's results disturbing your political beliefs.

The predictions by the models have been accurate and verified constantly over the years. Oh sure, there are many variables and you can include words like 'quantum' to make your attack sound more scientific. The thing is that the models don't need to be ultra specific and exact. We do not need to predict with full certainty that tomorrow we will have exactly 35 degrees and it will rain since 4:56 to 7:08. The predictions are on global scale and with estimates that have error ranges.

The complaint is similar to saying that since Newton's physics do not consider each particle into play inside a ball it would be impossible for scientists to calculate where will a ball launched at 35 degrees with a certain starting velocity will get. In reality, although Newton's physics do not consider everything, they are very good at giving estimates about the positions of the ball which will be a macro result. Newton's physics are a model that does not really consider things the way they are with detail but it is still a model that can predict things with some accuracy.

And of course you can altern some factors to make a model do anything. But the models used have to make correct predictions about past events before we can consider them good to predict future events. That is of course, not as easy. And I'd say that if it was easy we would have more climate deniers come up with studies in which they make the statistical models fit a vision of no warming.

Anyway: https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/ ... q-8.1.html


This is absolute and utter BS.

The trend of world temperatures has stayed in the rise.

They are using Climate change because it is common to have idiots see a strong winter in a local region and say "OMGZ see? Global warming is wrong!!11". It is also inaccurate to say that just because global temperatures are raising it will mean that all places will turn warmer. In some parts of the world, global warming will cause lower temperatures.

Ok, fine, the climate is changing.
I just don't think it's that big of a deal.
So the sea level rises, it's not gonna happen overnight. People will either move or build retaining walls.
So intense storms will occur.... Ma Nature is a b***h sometimes, isn't she?

We really won't know exactly what will happen in the centuries to come, but whatever does happen, Humankind will deal with it when it happens, not before. We're a pretty darn inventive species, especially when we get desperate.

Anyhow, the world has much bigger problems to deal with right now than CO2 & climate change.

Yes. The only solutions are unspeakable.

I think because it is so complicated both camps can get away with their viewpoints. But I doubt we can ignore industrialisation and population growth as contributers to climate change. Either way I kind of like it because it draws our attention to the planet as a whole and makes us think about the bigger picture rather than our own short sighted ends (some of us anyway)

Yet other solar system bodies, e.g., Mars and Triton of all places, are also warming. As I indicated in my first post to this thread, barring major parameter changes [1], Earth's average temperature must increase with time. This is because the Sun's output, like that of all main sequence stars, must increase with time.

Humans clear forests and burn carbonaceous materials, including large quantities of fossil fuels. It's ridiculous to think these activities won't lead to greater levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide; and, all other things being equal, more CO₂ means higher average temperatures. I don't really think anyone is denying this, and if they are they're silly. I also don't think anyone is disputing the fact that climate models can't be made to fit our current situation well without accounting for increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses.

Please keep in mind though that Earth's climate, like any stable system, is regulated by negative feedback mechanisms. One cannot "safely assume" that if we continue to kill trees and pump out CO₂ that the average temperature will increase until it cooks off methane clathrates and turns this planet into another Venus. Besides, give the Sun a billion years or so and it will do this on its own.

All of that said, I haven't too much of a problem with the science behind anthropogenic warming. I do, however, have serious objections to the response.

[1] By "major parameter changes" I mean something like a significant outward shift in Earth's orbit.