Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Arguments Against Climate Change Science
Back in 2011 the skeptics claimed the sea level was falling. They are not as keen to discuss it now.
http://
Some claim that the temperature hasn't risen since 1998. Of course they looked only at atmospheric temperature and abused the statistics by picking a severe El Nino year when heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere.
The upwards trend in atmospheric temperature is unmistakable.
http://
The ocean heat content is steadily rising.
http://
Have they got anything left to support their case?
http://
Some claim that the temperature hasn't risen since 1998. Of course they looked only at atmospheric temperature and abused the statistics by picking a severe El Nino year when heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere.
The upwards trend in atmospheric temperature is unmistakable.
http://
The ocean heat content is steadily rising.
http://
Have they got anything left to support their case?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//I am passionate about this issue because it represents the biggest threat ever faced by humanity. //
No it doesn't.... I'm more concerned with the rise of IS and the threat that Islamic fundamentalists present to the world... rather than the AGW Fundamentalists. Nature will take it's course whatever we chuck at it!!
No it doesn't.... I'm more concerned with the rise of IS and the threat that Islamic fundamentalists present to the world... rather than the AGW Fundamentalists. Nature will take it's course whatever we chuck at it!!
Khandro
New judge; // they, like me, will have to deal with whatever the planet throws at them.//
This disconcerting attitude demonstrates a naïve belief that some form of technological solution will always appear before things get too bad. This techno-optimism arises from a Cold War space race and it's science-fiction fantasies: we are not interstellar cowboys who could leave our planet if things get too rough. Humanity clings to a small blue-green reef in the middle of a limitless, hostile ocean. If we cannot live on the bounty of this reef there is nowhere else to go, and we will die gasping for breath.//
Well said Khandro.
Climate theory indicates that upon reaching sufficient heat, a powerful positive feedback mechanism exists that drives much of the oceans to the temperatures of a hot bath. It has been suggested that this mechanism is the release of vast quantities of methane from the permafrost as it melts.
Methane is twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. This mechanism could produce a runaway greenhouse effect for which there is no technological solution.
Recently, huge spike in the methane concentration have been observed at high latitudes. How do you like our chances?
If the 99 percent of scientist that say climate change is a problem are right and we do nothing then we face a monumental disaster.
If the skeptics are right we converted the planet to energy sources that will sustain us indefinitely and cost less than fossil fuels in the long term. We will avoid degrading vast tracts of land and poisoning our habitat with billions of barrels of oil leaked from ever more dangerous wells such as Deepwater Horizon that has left 2 million barrels on the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico.
New judge; // they, like me, will have to deal with whatever the planet throws at them.//
This disconcerting attitude demonstrates a naïve belief that some form of technological solution will always appear before things get too bad. This techno-optimism arises from a Cold War space race and it's science-fiction fantasies: we are not interstellar cowboys who could leave our planet if things get too rough. Humanity clings to a small blue-green reef in the middle of a limitless, hostile ocean. If we cannot live on the bounty of this reef there is nowhere else to go, and we will die gasping for breath.//
Well said Khandro.
Climate theory indicates that upon reaching sufficient heat, a powerful positive feedback mechanism exists that drives much of the oceans to the temperatures of a hot bath. It has been suggested that this mechanism is the release of vast quantities of methane from the permafrost as it melts.
Methane is twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. This mechanism could produce a runaway greenhouse effect for which there is no technological solution.
Recently, huge spike in the methane concentration have been observed at high latitudes. How do you like our chances?
If the 99 percent of scientist that say climate change is a problem are right and we do nothing then we face a monumental disaster.
If the skeptics are right we converted the planet to energy sources that will sustain us indefinitely and cost less than fossil fuels in the long term. We will avoid degrading vast tracts of land and poisoning our habitat with billions of barrels of oil leaked from ever more dangerous wells such as Deepwater Horizon that has left 2 million barrels on the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico.
Slpashot
//Ernst George Beck recently reviewed these early measurements combining the results from several studies and his paper titled “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” was published in Energy & Environment, 2007, Volume 18, Number 2. ..... Just a cut and paste from our last discussion....
This paper concluded actual measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than current levels in the recent past. The high level maxima’s occurred around 1825, 1857 and 1942. The carbon dioxide levels in 1942 exceeded 400 ppm. //
Beck's review elevates the reliability of a few selected 19th and early 20th century measurements above others which are consistent with modern atmospheric science. Many were taken with primitive instruments in heavily polluted industrial areas.
Moreover no mechanism has been postulated to explain how such enormous swings in atmospheric carbon dioxide could possibly occur. There is nothing that could release and absorb such huge quantities of carbon dioxide in such a short time. Common sense tells us that the measurements reviewed by Beck are wrong.
http://
Next!
//Ernst George Beck recently reviewed these early measurements combining the results from several studies and his paper titled “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” was published in Energy & Environment, 2007, Volume 18, Number 2. ..... Just a cut and paste from our last discussion....
This paper concluded actual measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than current levels in the recent past. The high level maxima’s occurred around 1825, 1857 and 1942. The carbon dioxide levels in 1942 exceeded 400 ppm. //
Beck's review elevates the reliability of a few selected 19th and early 20th century measurements above others which are consistent with modern atmospheric science. Many were taken with primitive instruments in heavily polluted industrial areas.
Moreover no mechanism has been postulated to explain how such enormous swings in atmospheric carbon dioxide could possibly occur. There is nothing that could release and absorb such huge quantities of carbon dioxide in such a short time. Common sense tells us that the measurements reviewed by Beck are wrong.
http://
Next!
I have no idea where the notion of 60% comes from.
Either way there is simply no mechanism to cause such massive fluctuation in global atmospheric CO2. The only reasonable explanation are that the readings were wrong or did not reflect the global average.
Only the most extreme skeptics would suggest Beck was on to something.
Either way there is simply no mechanism to cause such massive fluctuation in global atmospheric CO2. The only reasonable explanation are that the readings were wrong or did not reflect the global average.
Only the most extreme skeptics would suggest Beck was on to something.
The arguments against a human impact on this world always surprise me. We've scraped some seas almost empty of fish life. We've chopped down stupidly large amounts of forest. We've taken supplies of carbon that had been locked away for hundreds of millions of years and burned them. We've managed to wipe out hundreds of species, including one whose numbers at one point were recorded in billions. Cities can be seen to have an eerie yellow glow around from all the gas emissions. There is a spike of lead concentrations in the atmosphere from when we thought it would be a good idea to put a poisonous metal into petrol in large concentrations. Agriculture in many places has led to great swathes of land being devoted to just one or two crops. Which we then spray with artificial chemicals that not only kill the animals that feed on the crops, but also leak into the surroundings and kills plenty of other stuff as well.
In what world are people living in if they have some idea that there's nothing humans can do to affect life on this planet? Climate change caused by human activity ought to be obviously possible. We've screwed everything else up.
In what world are people living in if they have some idea that there's nothing humans can do to affect life on this planet? Climate change caused by human activity ought to be obviously possible. We've screwed everything else up.
Mankind has control of 4% of the Carbon the rest is in the LCC, the oceans are the biggest emitter of carbon. Volcanoes are constantly errupting. The last Icelandic one wiped out all Human efforts for at least a decade, not too mention "son of krakatoa" that has been errupting since the nineteenth century. Yes there is climate change, always has been always will be. I dispute how much effect mankind has when no one has ever explained to me why the effect of human emmissions seem to out weigh those of the planet when the volume is tiny in comparison. I remain to be convinced. That is not to say we should not control polution, we should.
"This disconcerting attitude demonstrates a naïve belief that some form of technological solution will always appear before things get too bad. "
No I don't believe that at all Khandro. But nor do I believe that slapping a hundred quid (or whatever) on my electricity bill and constructing hugely inefficient wind turbines will cure the alleged global problem. Whatever their current strategy (and at least they are replacing their ageing power plants rather than just shutting them down as we seem to be doing in the UK) China accounts for about 26% of global carbon emissions whilst accounting for about 17% of the population. They and the USA produce almost 45% of the emissions with around 20% of the population. Unless and until those nations take action (unlikely in the extreme) tinkering about with the 1.5% that the UK produces will make no difference. Even eliminating itm entirely would not even cover one year’s growth of those two nations. And that is the nub of my argument. Discussions can rage until the cows come home about whether AGW exists, to what extent and what its effects will be. Even if the arguments are accepted in full faffing about with electricity bills and turning street lights off will make not one jot of difference. Europe’s answer to the perceived problem is (as with everything else) “tax it”. Unless the tax becomes draconian and to such a level that we are all forced to sit in the dark and cold, it is simply a punitive measure. Street lights are turned off, powerful electrical appliances are banned but, conveniently, shops are still permitted to heat the streets for ten hours a day with their 25KW curtain heaters in front of their open doors in January. You could not make it up
As I have said before, I have lived through many alarmist scares, all of which were forecast by "experts" to wipe out half or more of the human race. Every one of them was supported by the sort of evidence presented here. Every one of them has turned out to be alarmist claptrap. So if it's all the same to you I'll continue to hold my views that future generations will have to deal with whatever comes. Species come, species go, we've only been around for a very brief period anyway and at some point our stupidity will get the better of us one way or another. Meantime I'd like the street lights to remain on when I walk back from the pub (that is, if I‘ve enough cash left to be able to go there in the first place).
No I don't believe that at all Khandro. But nor do I believe that slapping a hundred quid (or whatever) on my electricity bill and constructing hugely inefficient wind turbines will cure the alleged global problem. Whatever their current strategy (and at least they are replacing their ageing power plants rather than just shutting them down as we seem to be doing in the UK) China accounts for about 26% of global carbon emissions whilst accounting for about 17% of the population. They and the USA produce almost 45% of the emissions with around 20% of the population. Unless and until those nations take action (unlikely in the extreme) tinkering about with the 1.5% that the UK produces will make no difference. Even eliminating itm entirely would not even cover one year’s growth of those two nations. And that is the nub of my argument. Discussions can rage until the cows come home about whether AGW exists, to what extent and what its effects will be. Even if the arguments are accepted in full faffing about with electricity bills and turning street lights off will make not one jot of difference. Europe’s answer to the perceived problem is (as with everything else) “tax it”. Unless the tax becomes draconian and to such a level that we are all forced to sit in the dark and cold, it is simply a punitive measure. Street lights are turned off, powerful electrical appliances are banned but, conveniently, shops are still permitted to heat the streets for ten hours a day with their 25KW curtain heaters in front of their open doors in January. You could not make it up
As I have said before, I have lived through many alarmist scares, all of which were forecast by "experts" to wipe out half or more of the human race. Every one of them was supported by the sort of evidence presented here. Every one of them has turned out to be alarmist claptrap. So if it's all the same to you I'll continue to hold my views that future generations will have to deal with whatever comes. Species come, species go, we've only been around for a very brief period anyway and at some point our stupidity will get the better of us one way or another. Meantime I'd like the street lights to remain on when I walk back from the pub (that is, if I‘ve enough cash left to be able to go there in the first place).
It's not about the human contribution "outweighing" natural emissions, although to some extent natural emissions can be ill-defined since these could be said to include, say, emissions from paddy-fields which are obviously ours. The point is that mankind's contribution has been simultaneously to increase the amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, while cutting down the (mainly CO2) sinks such as trees and other assorted plantlife. This upsets a balance.
As I've said before every time this debate appears, human's contribution can be said to be the difference between 99 units in, 100 out and 103 units in, 98 out (these numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but it's about the concept here).
As Mr. Micawber might have said "annual CO2 increase 100 units, annual removal 101 units, result: happiness. Annual C02 increase 101 units, annual removal 100 units, result: misery!"
It doesn't take much to ruin a delicately-balanced system. And in all our activities, that is what we have been doing.
As I've said before every time this debate appears, human's contribution can be said to be the difference between 99 units in, 100 out and 103 units in, 98 out (these numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but it's about the concept here).
As Mr. Micawber might have said "annual CO2 increase 100 units, annual removal 101 units, result: happiness. Annual C02 increase 101 units, annual removal 100 units, result: misery!"
It doesn't take much to ruin a delicately-balanced system. And in all our activities, that is what we have been doing.
I don't want to get too involved in the argument, jim, because you know my stance. However, this "filling a sink" concept is often bandied about.
Perhaps you could explain how the system is "so delicately balanced" when emissions from non-human sources vary so enormously. How does a 1% increase in our 4% tip the system over the edge, whereas a 1% increase in the other 96% (say, when a major volcano erupts) can be easily accommodated?
Perhaps you could explain how the system is "so delicately balanced" when emissions from non-human sources vary so enormously. How does a 1% increase in our 4% tip the system over the edge, whereas a 1% increase in the other 96% (say, when a major volcano erupts) can be easily accommodated?
Beso - Putting aside the usual arguments about whether it's happening or not and whose fault it is, I'm not sure what it is you actually want us to be doing about it anyway.
As the judge says, we're already being forced to fund renewables whether we want to or not through taxation, and we're restricted to using those lightbulbs that only start to emit a useful amount of light 10 minutes after you've left the room. Everyone uses the minimum amount of fuel they can as it is, because they can't afford not to.
As the judge says, we're already being forced to fund renewables whether we want to or not through taxation, and we're restricted to using those lightbulbs that only start to emit a useful amount of light 10 minutes after you've left the room. Everyone uses the minimum amount of fuel they can as it is, because they can't afford not to.
I think there one has to remember that the natural emissions do indeed vary annually, but represent an essentially constant background, at least over the last hundred years or so. On top of that background human activity has increased emissions, and even the increase goes up year on year. Thus natural variations can be accommodated because they don't represent a constant increase and can be averaged out.
That's my way of explaining it and, as a non-expert in the field, I'll admit that some of what I say may well be wrong. But it's probably not too far off the truth (signal/ background analysis will be needed to make it watertight). Regardless, human activity is making and will continue to make a difference, and there is a limit to how much of a difference the system can take.
That's my way of explaining it and, as a non-expert in the field, I'll admit that some of what I say may well be wrong. But it's probably not too far off the truth (signal/ background analysis will be needed to make it watertight). Regardless, human activity is making and will continue to make a difference, and there is a limit to how much of a difference the system can take.
I've read this thread with interest - I am neither a sceptic (skeptic? persumably beso is American) nor a believer because, simply, I do not understand the science.
As I am ignorant of the science I feel in a reasonably strong position to cast an objective vote based on the arguments of each side, and I find Slapshot's to be more compelling than beso.
Therefore - Slapshot 1 Beso 0.
As I am ignorant of the science I feel in a reasonably strong position to cast an objective vote based on the arguments of each side, and I find Slapshot's to be more compelling than beso.
Therefore - Slapshot 1 Beso 0.
Well it's nice to get a reasoned external assessment of the arguments but my worry is that the arguments against human-induced climate change are seriously flawed. They are based on, for example, inconsistencies in model predictions -- but you should expect this, because the climate is a highly complex system and is therefore sensitive to input. Or an observation that the temperatures globally haven't risen much in the last ten years or so -- which is, I believe, true, but at temperature averages that are among the highest in recorded history. Or, one or two years ago, there was an annual increase in the levels of Arctic Sea Ice. Which, again, may be true, but the level it was increasing from was the lowest it had ever been.
And so on. Both sides are, I'm sure, guilty of selective data use to support their own arguments. What gets missed as a result is the big picture, which is that human activity is disrupting the long-term carbon cycle and messing with the planet in a huge and unsustainable manner. The AGW movement, for me, is making an argument equivalent to looking at an 80-year-old habitual smoker/ drinker who's suffered no significant health issues and concluding that smoking is, after all, not bad for you at all. It's an awful argument there -- it's equally awful here.
And so on. Both sides are, I'm sure, guilty of selective data use to support their own arguments. What gets missed as a result is the big picture, which is that human activity is disrupting the long-term carbon cycle and messing with the planet in a huge and unsustainable manner. The AGW movement, for me, is making an argument equivalent to looking at an 80-year-old habitual smoker/ drinker who's suffered no significant health issues and concluding that smoking is, after all, not bad for you at all. It's an awful argument there -- it's equally awful here.
Jim how far do you think the "fashion" of the subject effects the scientists on this? I mean It's well known that to get funding you need to be working of something that is "the in thing" - many claim that the prevalence of scientific backing for MMCC comes from this aspect of research funding. It's very difficult to get any sort of funding on research that is considered heresy. ie the modern equivalent of threatening Galileo with the rack for suggesting the earth is not the centre of the universe!
It's possible that it has some effect, but eventually the truth will out.
What I've been trying to argue in this thread is that the basic idea behind Climate Change Science is not so much what will happen in the future (I don't think that anyone's helped matters by headline implausible doomsday-like predictions, although this is chiefly the media's fault), but what is happening now -- namely that Human activity is not healthy for the planet. People who disagree with Climate Change often seem to think that it doesn't matter what we do to the planet -- which is dangerous nonsense.
What I've been trying to argue in this thread is that the basic idea behind Climate Change Science is not so much what will happen in the future (I don't think that anyone's helped matters by headline implausible doomsday-like predictions, although this is chiefly the media's fault), but what is happening now -- namely that Human activity is not healthy for the planet. People who disagree with Climate Change often seem to think that it doesn't matter what we do to the planet -- which is dangerous nonsense.
Quite agree jim. Some of the filth that humans produce should not be tolerated. Much of it (and much of the less filthy stuff) is produced as a result of over population but nobody seems to want to tread on this "delicate" ground.
However, the most annoying aspects for me are twofold:
(1) "The science is done" attitude which prevails (and this questioner is a prime example of this arrogance). The science very clearly isn't done. As you suggest arguments against HICC are a bit dodgy for the reasons you state. Of course those reasons could equally be used to cast doubt on arguments in support of it but such arguments are seen as heresy because "the science is done" when it very clearly isn't.
(2) Even if the science was done, or at best humankind is erring on the safe side (perfectly understandable) the ridiculous nonsense that is introduced as "measures" to combat climate change are truly astounding. Nobody will convince me that adding a chunk to my leccy bill to pay for "Carbon Credits" or to fund all but useless so-called renewable energy facilities will do anything to combat the problem. Forcing people to use unsuitable light bulbs, to use low powered electrical appliances and turning off street lights when it's dark will have negligible impact when compared to the growth in emissions that is taking place elsewhere. The issue is tailor made for the EU and to a lesser degree the UK government.. Europe is full of control freaks who inhabit the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg. It gives them the excuse to set up departments full of busybodies who will bully people around, levy unnecessary taxes which will be squandered and introduce rules and regulations which will not address the problem one jot. Beso has been asked a couple of times to tell us what he wants us to do. Apart from us all planting forests I'm still in the dark. And that's where we will all be if the control freaks get their way.
However, the most annoying aspects for me are twofold:
(1) "The science is done" attitude which prevails (and this questioner is a prime example of this arrogance). The science very clearly isn't done. As you suggest arguments against HICC are a bit dodgy for the reasons you state. Of course those reasons could equally be used to cast doubt on arguments in support of it but such arguments are seen as heresy because "the science is done" when it very clearly isn't.
(2) Even if the science was done, or at best humankind is erring on the safe side (perfectly understandable) the ridiculous nonsense that is introduced as "measures" to combat climate change are truly astounding. Nobody will convince me that adding a chunk to my leccy bill to pay for "Carbon Credits" or to fund all but useless so-called renewable energy facilities will do anything to combat the problem. Forcing people to use unsuitable light bulbs, to use low powered electrical appliances and turning off street lights when it's dark will have negligible impact when compared to the growth in emissions that is taking place elsewhere. The issue is tailor made for the EU and to a lesser degree the UK government.. Europe is full of control freaks who inhabit the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg. It gives them the excuse to set up departments full of busybodies who will bully people around, levy unnecessary taxes which will be squandered and introduce rules and regulations which will not address the problem one jot. Beso has been asked a couple of times to tell us what he wants us to do. Apart from us all planting forests I'm still in the dark. And that's where we will all be if the control freaks get their way.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Family & Relationships7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
News16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.