No one doubts the cycles the climate goes through but these take thousands of years - change at the moment is taking tens/hundreds of years. It is the rate of change that is the issue - clearly influenced by human behaviour.
Printable View
No one doubts the cycles the climate goes through but these take thousands of years - change at the moment is taking tens/hundreds of years. It is the rate of change that is the issue - clearly influenced by human behaviour.
G'Day Disco,....I reckon this post is spot on. What do you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
Pickles.
I do belive that the current climate warming is primarily a man made problem through a variety of causes, which is what the CURRENT scientific evidence points to. I highlight the word current as scientific research is always evolving and changing, we may discover something in the future that changes the view which is what science has done for generations. Unfortunately in this day and age people just jump on the band wagon and label science as misleading, wrong, fraudulent etc... if it comes out as being incorrect. I belive that there has been a lot of misinformation around this subject designed to confuse the masses - just look back at the history of cigarette manufacturers on claiming smoking was harmless or downplaying the harm. If you think the same sort of thing is not happening now with the big energy companies then I think your deluded.
At the end of the day if man made climate change is real or not (do the deniers deny that the climate is changing or agree that is changing but deny its man driven?) one think is undeniable - the majority of our resources are not infinite. We need to find ways to reduce our dependence on this things as one day they will be gone. And whats the worst thing that can happen by switching to renewable/low emission energy - we all have a little cleaner air to breathe. How many of you would put your had up to live in a major Chinese city full time over a major Australian city (if everything was equal apart from the smog). Business will evolve same as its always done in the past, governments all around the world need to get off their arses and start making the transition away from fossil fuels - its a doable and we've previously managed similar with banning of ozone depleting CFC's
Here's some information to demonstrate that climate change is already changing the spread of malaria and dengue fever, which already affect millions of people in Africa, Asia and other areas. Diseases thrive in warm, wet situations with temperatures higher than about 20 degrees, so the mosquitoes can breed.
Diseases may turn out to be the biggest threats from climate change. These are facts.
Climate Change and Vector-Borne Disease | UCAR Center for Science Education
@ Philip: I don't consider calling someone(or a group) of people denialists, is traditional name calling, in the sense that it's derogatory in any way. Personally can't see the need to mod the use of that term.
I simply see it's usage in the literal sense .. person/group denying something is ..
So with that in mind, lets assume I'm a denialist, which I'm not, like I already said, I don't care for either side of the coin. I've been following climate change for a good 30+ years now, and seen it going from ice age cometh, to a change of heart and mind to doomsday fire and brimstone armageddon(if you were to believe the sensationalist amongst the environmentalist lobby sector.
No ifs or buts there, that's just the way it is.
I'm reckon far too much money being spent at stupid levels to research the effects of global warming, where such money would be much better spent on researching alternatives to current methods of doing stuff(ie. energy/transport/etc)
Not enough spent on the science of alternative energy production. We don't need more research on global warming causes and effect. It's safe to assume that the vast majority of people understand that the globe is warming .. we get it.
OK, there's quite a few that dispute why it's warming, but that's not what this reply is about.
What is apparent is that the sensationalists seem to maintain the highest profile in the community(on both sides of the argument). The sensationalist researcher types need to output some of their data to maintain the next level of funding they expect to get .. the more sensationalist the science, the higher the probability of their next round of funding.
Denialist or cynic?
I remember reading an article where collectively, about $100 billion (US) is spent on global warming research. In previous years, fair nuff!
So, it's only understandable that the sensationalist scientist will continue with that method of delivering their findings as they have a something to lose ... their funding.
If I was to look at it from their perspective, I'd also not want to maintain my cushy lifestyle, bludging around doing the same thing I have been for the last 30 odd years too.
Why I should now do more work for the same funding amount.
Anyhow, back to my denialism.
As a denialist, am I wrong to remember that back in the very late 80's to very early 90's scientists .. probably the same set of climate scientists were claiming that we were heading into an ice age.
I know not many people remember it. I certainly do. Many articles in Nat Geo, Time, etc.. basically if it related to climate science back then I'd have had a copy of it.
I think I kept those types of articles for about 10 odd years, finally chucked out. Stupid me! should have kept them. Can't recall exactly, but at least 5 copies of Time and maybe a few more than that of Nat Geo .. probably 2 articles per year for a while.
So now thinking back .. obviously THOSE scientists were wrong about the climate .. and how monumentally wrong they were!
But their data showed that for about a decade in the 1940-60's there was a huge drop in global temps .. much more than we now see on the graphs they show. The drop was in the 2°C region relative to the first 30 years of the 20th century.
For a while I couldn't figure out why or how it changed, but this is how I remember it. Hence in the early 90's those climate scientist were right to assume that we're heading into a cold period.
So I looked into what happened with the change.
For years I remember the highest temperature recorded on Earth was in Libya in 1922 at >57°C then recently discovered that it was decertified in 2012! 90 years later.
So 90 years later, mind you during the great debate of is the globe warming, the WMO(World Met Organisation) discovered that there was a fault with the instruments or something. Of course they couldn't have discovered this during the previous 90 years or so that they had this info, just so happened that 90 years after the fact at the peak of the global warming hysteria, that the hotter periods may not have actually happened.
Doesn't correlate with their current data output does it? [bighmmm]
When science reaches the point that they remove data that doesn't correspond with their belief and/or message .. it's no longer science.
Question is, what other data have they subsequently removed?
Denialist or cynic?
They question the validity of the data measured by the meteorologist in Libya 90 years previously, yet they'll claim that their 'anecdotal' measurements of ice cores is accurate?
In scientific terms this is pure stupid! You've got the data read by verified methods. You maintain this data for 90 years, then out of the blue a decision is made that it wasn't accurate enough.
Yet, they pull some bubbles of ancient air from ice estimate it's approximate temperature coefficient and claim it to be a fact that you have recorded data.
Laughable to say the least .. of course the cynical me! .. oops! .. I meant the denialist ... will always try to find fault with 'the system'.
I'm curious to know how many folks know what year(s) the Antarctic ice sheet was measured to be at it's largest recorded size?
Quote NASA:
Quote NASA:Quote:
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
We get bombarded with 'sensationalist crap' .. and the real data may(or may not) get a byline on the 49th page of an obscure media outlet, next to the page with the scantily clad woman selling the latest and greatest product.Quote:
“The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
Nobody I've ever spoken with about climate change has ever read or heard that the Antarctic ice sheet had grown in any way shape or form .. all they hear is that ice is melting, sea levels rising.
Unbalanced science is bad for everybody ... not least the scientists themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
The "alarmists" you're referring to are climate scientists - you know, the people who are actually experts in the subject. The "comments to the contrary" are coming from people like yourself who haven't done post-grad degrees in science and meteorology or run the climate studies or know how to construct the computer models. I was involved in a decade long thread on another forum where one of the main protagonists was an (in)famous denialist, and the other participants were (i believe) climate scientists - there wasn't a single point that the denialist made that stood up to scrutiny.
Isn't the bigger issue here why so many people like yourself have fallen for the line of propaganda promulgated by the Koch brothers and their Heritage foundation? I did a meteorology subject when I was at Uni in the 80s and climate change was a known issue then. It was only when the Koch brothers and their PR firms got involved that it became a political issue.
In the end the science will be proven correct - as it already is being - but by then it will be too late.
This is a fairly common accusation - the scientists are just doing it for the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
It was actually from around the 1970s, not the 80s or 90s and based on ideas from the 1940s and it was predicting an Ice Age 10,000 years in the future, not imminently, but with a forecast cooling of the Northern Hemisphere. And this theory may actually be correct - as the current surge in temperature is an upward, human-forced change in what may be a long-term cooling trend. So they're actually not incompatible ideas. And I have a book on my desk in front of me published in 1978 that discusses the forecast cooling to 18th Century levels in the Northern Hemisphere but then devotes a chapter - titled "The Joker in the Pack" - to what the effect of growing CO2 levels could be. It goes on to say:Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
"from the year 2000 onwards, these effects are likely to be of increasing importance for at least the next century, with most of man's activities acting to produce a warmer Earth"
It goes on to talk about changes in rainfall patterns and rises in sea levels. And this was in 1978. So, your characterisation of the science, and scientists, is incorrect. There were plenty of scientists at that time predicting the current situation. BTW, if you'd like to have a read of the book it's called "The Climatic Threat" by John Gribbin.
are these the same scientists who said we have have flying cars by now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arapiles
have you seen the new defender? it aint flying.
It was Disney who predicted flying cars, not climate scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
i think u need to go back and look at the histroy of the flying carQuote:
Originally Posted by Arapiles