|
|
Post by Lommaren on May 21, 2019 9:33:32 GMT -5
Obviously solar activities will impact the climate, that's why I've always held the 50/50 principal view on the causation of natural and human impacts. It may be distributed slightly differently one way or the other, but any historical swings are very correlative as can be seen from 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 's diagram, what we've done here is to exaggarate the solar high in recent times. Saying humans have little or no effect is silly, but it pinning 100 % on humans is just as silly when the natural cycles look the way they do.
We should do something about our emissions, needless to say, but the earth would've warmed from the mini ice age, albeit less, even had we not been here.
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 21, 2019 9:44:10 GMT -5
Obviously solar activities will impact the climate, that's why I've always held the 50/50 principal view on the causation of natural and human impacts. It may be distributed slightly differently one way or the other, but any historical swings are very correlative as can be seen from 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 's diagram, what we've done here is to exaggarate the solar high in recent times. Saying humans have little or no effect is silly, but it pinning 100 % on humans is just as silly when the natural cycles look the way they do. except greenhouse gas-driven climate change has only been around since 1950 or so. And solar activities haven't gone up much [ 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 's graph shows a big increase, but it ends in 1980-1990 or so]. Plus, it's just small compared to greenhouse gas changes. Estimated radiative changes from greenhouse gases vs sun according to the IPCC  |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 21, 2019 20:35:00 GMT -5
There's significant evidence that suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and it can be verified that the probability that we would have extreme events like the flooding in Houston, hurricane Maria, and other natural disasters is statistically improbable without climate change. I will respond to this more in depth at a later time. Extreme events, especially storms (temperature is more directly related to heat), is the weakest observational evidence for anthropogenic climate. Any extremes are hard to evaluate, thorough weather records only go back 150 years or so, 300-350 years in a few places. And we do NOT know the distribution of extremes well ( extreme value theory helps a bit, but it's unlikely to be a normal distribution).The Hurricane Harvey caused flooding is particularly bad example. Harvey was a major hurricane, but its track and strength is not unheard of in Texas. It was stuck on the coast, half on the water, half off the water; perfect rain making machine. An unusual blocking high kept in place. Would global warming make that more likely? Don't think anyone knows for sure. Warmer water might make the same situation have 20% or 30% more rain than before; but it still be a huge rainstorm. Hurricane Maria was one of the stronger Caribbean hurricanes, still not improbable without climate change. Climate change probably made it a bit stronger from warmer waters; but it's not really evidence for climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on May 23, 2019 1:19:57 GMT -5
In this thread:
Alarmists: "How could you possibly doubt Science?"
Deniers: "But they've been completely wrong on this issue for decades."
Alarmists: "But how could you possibly doubt Science?"
Ad infinitum.
|
|
|
|
Post by alex992 on May 23, 2019 5:44:27 GMT -5
There's significant evidence that suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and it can be verified that the probability that we would have extreme events like the flooding in Houston, hurricane Maria, and other natural disasters is statistically improbable without climate change. I will respond to this more in depth at a later time. Extreme events, especially storms (temperature is more directly related to heat), is the weakest observational evidence for anthropogenic climate. Any extremes are hard to evaluate, thorough weather records only go back 150 years or so, 300-350 years in a few places. And we do NOT know the distribution of extremes well ( extreme value theory helps a bit, but it's unlikely to be a normal distribution).The Hurricane Harvey caused flooding is particularly bad example. Harvey was a major hurricane, but its track and strength is not unheard of in Texas. It was stuck on the coast, half on the water, half off the water; perfect rain making machine. An unusual blocking high kept in place. Would global warming make that more likely? Don't think anyone knows for sure. Warmer water might make the same situation have 20% or 30% more rain than before; but it still be a huge rainstorm. Hurricane Maria was one of the stronger Caribbean hurricanes, still not improbable without climate change. Climate change probably made it a bit stronger from warmer waters; but it's not really evidence for climate change. I think the whole argument that something like a strong hurricane or severe flooding would be "improbable" without climate change is misleading and stupid without anything to back it up. Flooding in Houston isn't anything out of the ordinary, it's located in marshland at very low elevation, next to a large (and very warm) body of water. It's quite common for it to flood in Houston, a quick glance at Houston's Wikipedia article shows exactly this. And you're right the track and intensity for Harvey isn't too unusual for Texas, back in July 1979 Alvin, TX actually received 43-44" of rainfall in a single day from a similar storm, so using Harvey isn't a good example of climate change having an effect on that either. I think people have short memories, and point at some sporadic recent extreme events and act like it's something that's happening more on the norm nowadays when it's things that have always happened. Part of the reason things could seem more extreme nowadays might simply be due to the fact of technological advances and easier access to information about everything that's going on around the world. That being said, I DO believe in climate change and I do believe humans are the main cause, but people are too quick to point to one event and blame it on climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 23, 2019 8:31:49 GMT -5
In this thread: Alarmists: "How could you possibly doubt Science?" Deniers: "But they've been completely wrong on this issue for decades." Alarmists: "But how could you possibly doubt Science?"Ad infinitum. I've given plenty of scientific reasons, you could respond to them. I could write a much longer detailed explanation but it's way too much work and probably a waste of time. Also the "wrong on the issue" stuff you cite isn't actually from scientific sources! |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on May 23, 2019 9:45:08 GMT -5
In this thread: Alarmists: "How could you possibly doubt Science?" Deniers: "But they've been completely wrong on this issue for decades." Alarmists: "But how could you possibly doubt Science?"Ad infinitum. I've given plenty of scientific reasons, you could respond to them. I could write a much longer detailed explanation but it's way too much work and probably a waste of time. Also the "wrong on the issue" stuff you cite isn't actually from scientific sources! What, is "poles haven't melted," "polar bear populations have risen" or "islands haven't been swallowed up by rising sea levels" not scientific enough for you? We're talking in observable facts, not pinky-promise computer models that have failed for decades. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 23, 2019 10:03:47 GMT -5
ffs I literally responded to what you're talking about below in earlier posts I've given plenty of scientific reasons, you could respond to them. I could write a much longer detailed explanation but it's way too much work and probably a waste of time. Also the "wrong on the issue" stuff you cite isn't actually from scientific sources! What, is "poles haven't melted," "polar bear populations have risen" or "islands haven't been swallowed up by rising sea levels" not scientific enough for you? Because the poles melting by now is not a prediction science is making and literally one minute of internet searching could have shown you that. Neither are sea level predictions for today that high, but I leave that for you to look up yourself, it isn't hard. cdweather.boards.net/post/94749 computer model predictions have been fairly decent, not perfect but it'd unrealistic to expect to predict something as complicated and as variable as the earth's atmosphere perfectly cdweather.boards.net/post/95052 |
|
|
|
Post by P London on May 23, 2019 12:19:31 GMT -5
There's significant evidence that suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and it can be verified that the probability that we would have extreme events like the flooding in Houston, hurricane Maria, and other natural disasters is statistically improbable without climate change. I will respond to this more in depth at a later time. Extreme events, especially storms (temperature is more directly related to heat), is the weakest observational evidence for anthropogenic climate. Any extremes are hard to evaluate, thorough weather records only go back 150 years or so, 300-350 years in a few places. And we do NOT know the distribution of extremes well ( extreme value theory helps a bit, but it's unlikely to be a normal distribution).The Hurricane Harvey caused flooding is particularly bad example. Harvey was a major hurricane, but its track and strength is not unheard of in Texas. It was stuck on the coast, half on the water, half off the water; perfect rain making machine. An unusual blocking high kept in place. Would global warming make that more likely? Don't think anyone knows for sure. Warmer water might make the same situation have 20% or 30% more rain than before; but it still be a huge rainstorm. Hurricane Maria was one of the stronger Caribbean hurricanes, still not improbable without climate change. Climate change probably made it a bit stronger from warmer waters; but it's not really evidence for climate change. I agree with this. People in the media and some of the general public cite random extreme weather events to human caused climate change (Global warming) but its a weak argument. Our climate is way to complex to understand what causes what and way said extreme event happened. I feel the past spring in London has been a bit cooler than recent years. |
|
|
|
Post by P London on May 23, 2019 12:28:03 GMT -5
Extreme events, especially storms (temperature is more directly related to heat), is the weakest observational evidence for anthropogenic climate. Any extremes are hard to evaluate, thorough weather records only go back 150 years or so, 300-350 years in a few places. And we do NOT know the distribution of extremes well ( extreme value theory helps a bit, but it's unlikely to be a normal distribution).The Hurricane Harvey caused flooding is particularly bad example. Harvey was a major hurricane, but its track and strength is not unheard of in Texas. It was stuck on the coast, half on the water, half off the water; perfect rain making machine. An unusual blocking high kept in place. Would global warming make that more likely? Don't think anyone knows for sure. Warmer water might make the same situation have 20% or 30% more rain than before; but it still be a huge rainstorm. Hurricane Maria was one of the stronger Caribbean hurricanes, still not improbable without climate change. Climate change probably made it a bit stronger from warmer waters; but it's not really evidence for climate change. I think the whole argument that something like a strong hurricane or severe flooding would be "improbable" without climate change is misleading and stupid without anything to back it up. Flooding in Houston isn't anything out of the ordinary, it's located in marshland at very low elevation, next to a large (and very warm) body of water. It's quite common for it to flood in Houston, a quick glance at Houston's Wikipedia article shows exactly this. And you're right the track and intensity for Harvey isn't too unusual for Texas, back in July 1979 Alvin, TX actually received 43-44" of rainfall in a single day from a similar storm, so using Harvey isn't a good example of climate change having an effect on that either. I think people have short memories, and point at some sporadic recent extreme events and act like it's something that's happening more on the norm nowadays when it's things that have always happened. Part of the reason things could seem more extreme nowadays might simply be due to the fact of technological advances and easier access to information about everything that's going on around the world. That being said, I DO believe in climate change and I do believe humans are the main cause, but people are too quick to point to one event and blame it on climate change. Does anyone in the general population have first hand knowledge or first hand experience with this? Its like believing in god. A lot of science is like that oddly similar to religion. Only thing I know is fact about the climate (relating to humans) is denser populated urban areas are normally warmer than less developed areas. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on May 23, 2019 14:22:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 23, 2019 14:47:16 GMT -5
Does anyone in the general population have first hand knowledge or first hand experience with this? Its like believing in god. A lot of science is like that oddly similar to religion. Only thing I know is fact about the climate (relating to humans) is denser populated urban areas are normally warmer than less developed areas. Since when the general population having a first hand knowledge/experience with a phenomenon is considered as a requirement to make a scientific theory valid? Most of the most important discoveries of the last century (to say the least) are counter-intuitive in respect to what the most of people think, still they are the base of many technologies we use everyday. In most cases the understanding of phenomena tends to be subtle and not straightforward at all, that's why scientists have to work on elaborate experiments and demonstrations before managing to improve the understanding on a certain topic. Scientific theories are definitively not something to blindly trust, without even trying to understand on which base those theories where defined. All the work which led to a certain affirmation are available, anyone could read those works and critically evaluate if it makes sense or not according to them. (Evidently, in some cases some study could be necessary just to understand what it is written). In the specific case of the climate change and global warming studies (notice the use of the keywords: climate, not weather, and global, not regional), the AGW theory remains the most complete and the best explanation to what is observed available at the moment. Could it be improved? Of course it could, it would actually be desirable. Further studies could also suggest that the better explanation to what we are observing is a completely different theory, who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 24, 2019 6:03:43 GMT -5
What is this particular graph supposed to prove in regards to Co2 being the foremost driver of climate? Posting these graphs in such a mindless manner only shows just how little you double-check your sources, or even how little you care to decipher what the graph itself is actually in referrence to—in this case, solely the Co2; nothing in relation with temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 24, 2019 6:23:54 GMT -5
Since when the general population having a first hand knowledge/experience with a phenomenon is considered as a requirement to make a scientific theory valid? Most of the most important discoveries of the last century (to say the least) are counter-intuitive in respect to what the most of people think, still they are the base of many technologies we use everyday. In most cases the understanding of phenomena tends to be subtle and not straightforward at all, that's why scientists have to work on elaborate experiments and demonstrations before managing to improve the understanding on a certain topic. Scientific theories are definitively not something to blindly trust, without even trying to understand on which base those theories where defined. All the work which led to a certain affirmation are available, anyone could read those works and critically evaluate if it makes sense or not according to them. (Evidently, in some cases some study could be necessary just to understand what it is written).
In the specific case of the climate change and global warming studies (notice the use of the keywords: climate, not weather, andglobal, not regional), the AGW theory remains the most complete and the best explanation to what is observed available at the moment. Could it be improved? Of course it could, it would actually be desirable. Further studies could also suggest that the better explanation to what we are observing is a completely different theory, who knows?The AGW theory could most certainly use an improvement, as far as its current standing is concerned! If you even admit yourself that AGW is indeed a theory, then why do you persistently attempt to display it as a proven scientific law? Co2 is, at best, one of many factors contributing to the conduction of climate—comprising water vapour, volcanic, oceanic and solar i.e. sunspot activities, UHI influence(s), amongst other factors; an atmospheric recipe, if you will. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 24, 2019 8:00:34 GMT -5
The AGW theory could most certainly use an improvement, as far as its current standing is concerned! If you even admit yourself that AGW is indeed a theory, then why do you persistently attempt to display it as a proven scientific law? Co2 is, at best, one of many factors contributing to the conduction of climate—comprising water vapour, volcanic, oceanic and solar i.e. sunspot activities, UHI influence(s), amongst other factors; an atmospheric recipe, if you will. What are yout talking about? She's described it as a theory the entire time, not as a proven scientific law. It can't be a scientific law, a scientific law is a statement of basic principles describing what happens and does not propose a mecanism; AGW can't be a scientific law. A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a lawen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_and_lawsMost of climate change does address the other factors and finds them minor, except for water vapor which doesn't really change independently (see the article I posted on it). |
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 24, 2019 9:01:54 GMT -5
nei Righto, correction accepted. Pardon my terrible misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on May 24, 2019 9:06:47 GMT -5
What is this particular graph supposed to prove in regards to Co2 being the foremost driver of climate? Posting these graphs in such a mindless manner only shows just how little you double-check your sources, or even how little you care to decipher what the graph itself is actually in referrence to—in this case, solely the Co2; nothing in relation with temperature.
CO2 is the prime driver of climate change, and the graph I posted shows how rapidly we are putting more of it in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 24, 2019 9:15:25 GMT -5
CO2 is the prime driver of climate change, and the graph I posted shows how rapidly we are putting more of it in the atmosphere.
That's not what the graph shows, at all; it shows only the Co2 increase. Looks to me as a very simple, straight-forward graph tooken off a common internet search—no other factors, no context, no source...absolutely naught. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on May 24, 2019 9:19:06 GMT -5
it shows only the Co2 increase.
Yup. That's the point of the graph.
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 24, 2019 12:04:45 GMT -5
What is this particular graph supposed to prove in regards to Co2 being the foremost driver of climate? Posting these graphs in such a mindless manner only shows just how little you double-check your sources, or even how little you care to decipher what the graph itself is actually in referrence to—in this case, solely the Co2; nothing in relation with temperature. CO2 is the prime driver of climate change, and the graph I posted shows how rapidly we are putting more of it in the atmosphere.
I agree that's true but that graph doesn't show that. Here's a graph showing a decrease in the number of pirates is the prime driver of climate change  |
|
