Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[SPman]

. Proior to that Greenland was known by the Vikings as "vinland" as they grew grapes there and made wine.

Crap! - another myth of no substance!
Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of that island. The vast majority of land not under an ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. Just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?

Proxy reconstructions have shown that the Medieval Warm Period (around the time the Vikings were said to have discovered North America) was in fact not as warm or pronounced as today's warmth.

What records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century....

"There has been much argument over the location of Vinland, with scholars and local enthusiasts placing it anywhere between Labrador and Florida, and even in the Great Lakes or the Mississippi Valley. The geographical descriptions in the Norse sagas are too vague to allow certain placement on a modern map, but there is growing consensus that they best fit Newfoundland and Labrador (formerly Newfoundland). The main problem with a Newfoundland and Labrador (formerly Newfoundland) site is the absence of wild grapes. Still, there is a strong suspicion that what Leif found were only berries, and that he followed the practice of his father in "giving a land a good name so that men would want to go there".

[James Deuce]

Leif and Erik are distant relatives of mine, so no doubt they are FANTASTIC bullshitters.

[Winston001]

This is a large part of the problem...

Consensus in engineering, mathematics and physics exists mostly in those aspects that have been established by repeatable experiment.

No-one will argue, if you say that member X will fail under N load if its thickness is < Z.

But you can't say, for example, that the Higgs boson will appear at energy E. You can at best establish an energy range within which it is likely to appear, based on well founded assumptions. BUT BASED ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, NO-ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL APPEAR, OR THAT IT EVEN EXISTS.

Errr.....ummm.....you are straying into quantum physics and Uncertainty which is quite different to the findings of climate data which is at a classical level.

For example, we cannot say where an electron is situated around an atom - just a best guess. But we can say what happens when that atom meets another atom with a spare proton.

For example CO2 - the greenhouse gas - combines with seawater to produce carbonic acid H2CO3. Why does this matter? Because ocean acidification is one of the major effects of high levels of CO2. Normally the ocean is slightly basic, not acidic. Acids dissolve shellfish and coral reefs. We only have to look at the dying Great Barrier Reef to see evidence of carbon pollution.

[george formby]

Bottom line is we don't know squat, climate will change regardless as it always has done. We are scrabbling to find facts now because we are poisoning ourselves & hope we can find a plaster to put on the problem. Won't happen. Human society runs on economics, which boils down to $$$$. Problem is without growth, the house of cards falls. For decades to come nothing significant will be done to protect ourselves because it is to costly. Further on, when we really need to get our shit together we will be running out of cheap energy, arable land, clean water, raw materials etc. Hot or cold climate thats when we are really in the poo.
The guy who came up with the Gaia theory recently stated about climate change " humanity will do nothing until it watch's the first million people die on TV". That rings horribly true.

[Mikkel]

This is a large part of the problem...

Consensus in engineering, mathematics and physics exists mostly in those aspects that have been established by repeatable experiment.

No-one will argue, if you say that member X will fail under N load if its thickness is < Z.

But you can't say, for example, that the Higgs boson will appear at energy E. You can at best establish an energy range within which it is likely to appear, based on well founded assumptions. BUT BASED ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, NO-ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL APPEAR, OR THAT IT EVEN EXISTS.

You don't have to take it even that far. Something as "simple" as quantum mechanics makes it quite obvious that physics is not an "exact" science. However, solving Schrodinger's equation for pretty much any interesting system is difficult. (for the record, difficult, in this case, means beyond our current ability)

Consider climate change. We can hardly argue the truth of basic observations such as "solar irradiance adds thermal energy to the system", "water vapour has a higher absorption of infra-red radiation than air", "the albedo depends upon the terrain", etc. In comparison to quantum mechanics, it is difficult to take all of these basic observations and set up an equation that will describe the entire system at once. However, in order to get an accurate picture you have to consider the system as a whole since everything is interconnected, entangled if you will.

Then you can either choose a) to give up or b) to give it your best shot. In this case the best shot is constructing a mathematical model that can describe the system with some degree of certainty. Unlike what Pixie stated, mathematical modelling is not exactly "guesswork" - but it does require that you make some assumptions along the way. If you have a political agenda, or even just a grant application coming up, it is very easy - even unconsciously - to manipulate these assumptions ever so slightly...

Climate change is affected by man, there can be no doubt about it since we are part of the system. However, whether that effect is inconsiderable or of a scale where it can actually drive climate change is more difficult to ascertain. As with most other things, the reality is to be found somewhere between the extremes. What is important, though, is to understand the system, if we don't we'll get into trouble sooner or later. Whether caused by man or not, a 5 meter rise in sea-levels would be more than a tad inconvenient. If we understood the system we might even be able to control such variations - to an extent.

[mashman]

Bottom line is we don't know squat, climate will change regardless as it always has done. We are scrabbling to find facts now because we are poisoning ourselves & hope we can find a plaster to put on the problem. Won't happen. Human society runs on economics, which boils down to $$$$. Problem is without growth, the house of cards falls. For decades to come nothing significant will be done to protect ourselves because it is to costly. Further on, when we really need to get our shit together we will be running out of cheap energy, arable land, clean water, raw materials etc. Hot or cold climate thats when we are really in the poo.
The guy who came up with the Gaia theory recently stated about climate change " humanity will do nothing until it watch's the first million people die on TV". That rings horribly true.

Sorry, I agree, but i have to ask this question George. Can you prove it? Because that's all anyone wants to hear... We have a solution!

Tell me, if this is the case and climatologists are trying to save the planet for us, why isn't climate research free?

As a country we have the capability to print money. Well you explain to me how the US found $700 billion to bail out the economy? Down the back of the couch?

Some people think that climate change can be solved, some people don't. In the meantime, as George says, we have to keep on stumping up $$$ to "save our planet".

[mashman]

If we understood the system we might even be able to control such variations - to an extent.

You're not wrong, we're supposedly doing this to control the planets ecosystem, at what cost?

[Mikkel]

You're not wrong, we're supposedly doing this to control the planets ecosystem, at what cost?

What I was proposing there is far removed from the current debate. Currently we don't understand the system enough to even get on the same base as to whether damage control is worthwhile, or even necessary for that matter.

Limiting carbon dioxide emissions is damage control - allocating resource specifically to collect and bind carbon dioxide to remove it from the atmosphere would be an attempt at controlling the the atmosphere.

At the moment we are burning fossil fuel, releasing carbon dioxide and more, at a rate where we use 1 million years of production every year. 1,000,000:1 is a pretty significant ratio.

[Quasievil]

Well its basically proven that the scientists leading the charge and providing date to the IPCC are fraudsters.

Scientists did conspire a conspiracy theory for their own gains

Scientists can be trusted..........insert Tui comment here.

Those involved have said the emails are theirs...........case closed

The entire data used for the Emissions trading scheme has been twisted and adjusted to suit the pro argument for nothing but financial gain.

SCEPTICS WIN..........case closed on that arguement, now watch the spin doctors go into motion to keep the B.S going.

Oh...........and I told you so !!

[Hans]

Errr.....ummm.....you are straying into quantum physics and Uncertainty which is quite different to the findings of climate data which is at a classical level.

For example, we cannot say where an electron is situated around an atom - just a best guess. But we can say what happens when that atom meets another atom with a spare proton.

I do not wish to enter into a shitfight with you, I have too much respect for your persona to do that to do that.

However:

You do realise that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing? Allow me to point out some inaccuracies in your post:

I am not straying into quantum physics or uncertainty.

a) The problem of symmetry breaking (ie the Higgs Boson) belongs into particle physics and Quantum Electrodynamics. BTW quantum physics is, at it's basic level, well understood and well predictable.

b) We can tell with absolute certainty, where an electron is situated OR what it's velocity is. We cannot tell BOTH. That is, in a nutshell, the uncertainty you were referring to.

c) You may be surprised to know that while obtaining the data on past temperatures etc. is indeed a case of classical physics, the generation of predictions based on such data is, in fact, frequently not. Or at the very least, the mathematics used in generating such predictions has no use in classical physics. I'm sure you understand the fine point of this distinction.

To sum up:

While I have personal respect for you, I cannot take your opinions on science seriously, when you make basic mistakes.
I'm sure you'd have me at logic and similar disciplines, but not the natural sciences.

[Hans]

You don't have to take it even that far. Something as "simple" as quantum mechanics makes it quite obvious that physics is not an "exact" science. However, solving Schrodinger's equation for pretty much any interesting system is difficult. (for the record, difficult, in this case, means beyond our current ability)

Consider climate change. We can hardly argue the truth of basic observations such as "solar irradiance adds thermal energy to the system", "water vapour has a higher absorption of infra-red radiation than air", "the albedo depends upon the terrain", etc. In comparison to quantum mechanics, it is difficult to take all of these basic observations and set up an equation that will describe the entire system at once. However, in order to get an accurate picture you have to consider the system as a whole since everything is interconnected, entangled if you will.

Then you can either choose a) to give up or b) to give it your best shot. In this case the best shot is constructing a mathematical model that can describe the system with some degree of certainty. Unlike what Pixie stated, mathematical modelling is not exactly "guesswork" - but it does require that you make some assumptions along the way. If you have a political agenda, or even just a grant application coming up, it is very easy - even unconsciously - to manipulate these assumptions ever so slightly...

Climate change is affected by man, there can be no doubt about it since we are part of the system. However, whether that effect is inconsiderable or of a scale where it can actually drive climate change is more difficult to ascertain. As with most other things, the reality is to be found somewhere between the extremes. What is important, though, is to understand the system, if we don't we'll get into trouble sooner or later. Whether caused by man or not, a 5 meter rise in sea-levels would be more than a tad inconvenient. If we understood the system we might even be able to control such variations - to an extent.

Hey, you make a good point. I agree. The problem and the original subject of this thread is the skewing of that "best available" method for political ends/expediency.

[scissorhands]

Nothing new under the sun. The emperor has no clothes!

[george formby]

Tell me, if this is the case and climatologists are trying to save the planet for us, why isn't climate research free?

As a country we have the capability to print money. Well you explain to me how the US found $700 billion to bail out the economy? Down the back of the couch?

Some people think that climate change can be solved, some people don't. In the meantime, as George says, we have to keep on stumping up $$$ to "save our planet".

Like you say, money, we print it. America is bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars, hundreds of trillions of dollars, thats a lot! But they have one helluva good reason for other countries & companys to keep investing in their nation. They are the world police, the worlds most technically advanced nation (for now) & the worlds biggest consumers & if America is allowed to become bankrupt, decades of international investment vanishes. A few hundred billion is beer tokens.
The only thing we can do about climate change is try to assuage our guilt & look after ourselves & the planet in the future.
One dirty great big volcano erupting, which is not uncommon, makes the whole climate change argument moot.
Lovely evening for a run on the bike by the way, I might go & see if Lake Taupo is warming up.

[mashman]

What I was proposing there is far removed from the current debate. Currently we don't understand the system enough to even get on the same base as to whether damage control is worthwhile, or even necessary for that matter.

Absolutely agree, but after 20 years we're only just finding out that we're nowhere near answering that question. They need more study time, more money for study!

Limiting carbon dioxide emissions is damage control - allocating resource specifically to collect and bind carbon dioxide to remove it from the atmosphere would be an attempt at controlling the the atmosphere.

At the moment we are burning fossil fuel, releasing carbon dioxide and more, at a rate where we use 1 million years of production every year. 1,000,000:1 is a pretty significant ratio.

Yup, that's 2 things we're doing.

[mashman]

Like you say, money, we print it. America is bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars, hundreds of trillions of dollars, thats a lot! But they have one helluva good reason for other countries & companys to keep investing in their nation. They are the world police, the worlds most technically advanced nation (for now) & the worlds biggest consumers & if America is allowed to become bankrupt, decades of international investment vanishes. A few hundred billion is beer tokens.
The only thing we can do about climate change is try to assuage our guilt & look after ourselves & the planet in the future.
One dirty great big volcano erupting, which is not uncommon, makes the whole climate change argument moot.
Lovely evening for a run on the bike by the way, I might go & see if Lake Taupo is warming up.

Muchos bling factor.