Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[Winston001]

Yes Jantar, from what I know you express the theory correctly. Essentially greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is significant) trap infrared heat within the atmosphere and the temperature builds up. Its happened often in the distant past, in fact the Earth has been relatively cool in human times.

Still, our industrial activities dirty the nest. That is my core concern. I consider AGW to be a red herring. Our real problems arise from overpopulation, pollution, and IMHO the likely collapse of the biosphere.

Simply put - we dig/burn/waste more chemicals than the natural environment can absorb. We kill living biology faster than it can reproduce - not just trees, fish etc but the tiny microbes at the base of our entire ecology.

[puddytat]

Chicken Little was right all along .....

[Jantar]

...

Still, our industrial activities dirty the nest. That is my core concern. I consider AGW to be a red herring. .....

And I'm with you on that one. One of my main concerns is the environment and I'm all for planting more trees, keeping Dairy away from our waterways, less use of chemicals in agriculture etc. But I'm against trying to fight nature, and blaming man for effects that are mainly natural, like climate change, is a fight against nature.

That is why I keep asking, "What evidence is required to falsify the AGW theory?"

[shrub]

You have evidence of that? Most skeptics I know are agnostic. There are some who are religious, but I don't know of any who belong to any fundamentalist group.Or maybe it is only the deniers who are religious. But the only deniers are those who refuse to look at the science, and the are more of those on the warmist side than the skeptic side.

I did a quick search, and it seems i was a little out of touch as even some of the more staunch evangelical groups are changing their stance and accepting climate change. I based my opinion on reading some of the blogs (including ones used here) that were frequently written and/or funded by fundamentalist christian groups, but they are dying out.

I would go as far as to say all skeptics are agnostic, including me, because the very nature of skepticism is contrary to religion, and good scientists are required to be the greatest of all skeptics. And yes, I am a skeptic about damn near everything, including climate change, however i am afflicted by something called cognitive dissonance so find it hard to deny what I see in front of me.

"What would you consider to be sufficient evidence to falsify the AGW theory?" In other words, what exactly is this warming hypothesis and what is the counter factual?

That the climate is changing and the global mean temperature is rising is not in doubt, so we have the question "why is this happening?"

I see H1 as being "human activity is releasing enormous amounts of carbpon into the atmosphere"
H1a is "the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly"

both of these hypotheses have been supported and the null has been denied.

H2 is "Solar energy enters the atmosphere as short wavelength light"

H3 is "That energy is converted to long wavelength thermal energy"

Given that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that energy needs to leave the atmosphere or the planet will warm up.

H4 is "the ability of long wave thermal energy to pass through the atmosphere is influenced by the makeup of that atmosphere, specifically the concentration of Carbon".

All of these hypotheses in a myriad of variations have been supported in a hundred thousand studies and none have been successfully challenged.

if you could show me that the current change in climate etc is caused by something else, then you would have my attention.

[Scuba_Steve]

here's another theory for ya all, the earth is often regarded a "living being" now we 'man' put a hole in the ozone making the earth "sick", what do other "living beings" do when sick??? They heat up to heal themselves.
So the earth is apparently heating up & Aussie scientists say the ozone hole is shrinking, so could it not be the earth is just healing itself???


No wait, can't tax that... my bad , I'll try to come back with something that is taxable (you know to make it "credible" )

[shrub]

Thanks Winston. There is no argument against the fact that man is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. That has never been disputed. There is uncertainty as to how long that extra CO2 stays in the atmosphere with various peer reviewed papers giving a range of only 2 years up to thousands of years, so there is uncertainty there.

Actually there is little uncertainty in how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere.

The answer is from 2 years to thousands of years. I light a fire and carbon gets released into the atmosphere, and some of that carbon gets snaffled up by the trees on my section, the ocean, the neighbour's lawn etc, so it has been in the atmosphere bugger all time, but some of the carbon my trees are absorbing was released 20 years ago, 100 years ago and thousands of years ago and some of the carbon my fire has released will still be in the atmosphere in 1000 years time.

I like motorcycle analogies. I fill my half full tank and ride down the road, and 100 km away I discover my tank is half full. Did the fuel I bought get used before the fuel I bought last week? Or did I use up last weeks fuel, and this morning's fuel is slopping around waiting to be converted into speed? The truth is I used some of the fuel I bought this morning, some from last week and potentially some of the fuel that i put in 2 years ago. Does that mean there is doubt about how long fuel stays in a tank?

The problem is because we are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than the existing sinks can absorb, so the concentration is increasing.

[shrub]

here's another theory for ya all, the earth is often regarded a "living being" now we 'man' put a hole in the ozone making the earth "sick", what do other "living beings" do when sick??? They heat up to heal themselves.
So the earth is apparently heating up & Aussie scientists say the ozone hole is shrinking, so could it not be the earth is just healing itself???


No wait, can't tax that... my bad , I'll try to come back with something that is taxable (you know to make it "credible" )

be careful, while you're thinking of answers the taxman has his eyes on you and is looking for new ways to tax you. I suggest a lead helmet.

[Winston001]

That the climate is changing and the global mean temperature is rising is not in doubt, so we have the question "why is this happening?"

I see H1 as being "human activity is releasing enormous amounts of carbpon into the atmosphere"
H1a is "the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly"

both of these hypotheses have been supported and the null has been denied.

if you could show me that the current change in climate etc is caused by something else, then you would have my attention.

I agree with you but in the interests of balance, those opposed to AGW point to natural sources of both organic and inorganic carbon entering the environment. For example melting permafrost could simply be the result of the Earth entering a warming cycle.

The best estimate I've come across (realclimate.org) is man's contribution at 4%pa. It could be less.

Ergo observing warming trends and elevated CO2 does not prove mankind is the cause. A factor yes, a contributor yes, but significant...??







Dammit YES.

[Jantar]

.......
if you could show me that the current change in climate etc is caused by something else, then you would have my attention.

Ah, the exclusion principle fallacy. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.” This principle was proved false back in the times of Darwin, and is still false today.

So all I have to do is show that some other phenomenon can cause the temperature to rise at rates seen since man started increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are three ways this can be achieved: One is to show that similar rates of temperature rise occured in the past without CO2 increasing at the rates we are currently seeing, thus providing evidence that there must be another mechanism; the second is tho show that CO2 has continued to rise at the same or an increasing rate, but temperatures haven't increased at the same rate; and the third is to show a correlation with a mechanism other than CO2.

Any one of these three would therefore falsify that theory. I'm at work just now, but I will put up data for at least 2 of these falsifications later this week.

[shrub]

I agree with you but in the interests of balance, those opposed to AGW point to natural sources of both organic and inorganic carbon entering the environment. For example melting permafrost could simply be the result of the Earth entering a warming cycle.

It could be, but all the research suggests that the earth is not meant to be entering a warming cycle. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the only source of warming big enough to heat the planet is the sun, and Jantar has identified that solar energy is decreasing.

The best estimate I've come across (realclimate.org) is man's contribution at 4%pa. It could be less. Ergo observing warming trends and elevated CO2 does not prove mankind is the cause. A factor yes, a contributor yes, but significant...??

For billions of years solar energy has been converted to carbon through photosynthesis, and that carbon has ended up stored underground. For the last 150 years or so we have turned as much of that carbon as we could into heat and in so doing released carbon into the atmosphere.

Our 4% is highly significant because the ecosystem is a very finely tuned mechanism, and even a small change has an impact, especially over time. What would be the impact of advancing your ignition timing 4%?

[shrub]

Ah, the exclusion principle fallacy. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.” This principle was proved false back in the times of Darwin, and is still false today.

No, Ockham's razor. The most logical and simplest explanation is usually the best.

So all I have to do is show that some other phenomenon can cause the temperature to rise at rates seen since man started increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are three ways this can be achieved: One is to show that similar rates of temperature rise occured in the past without CO2 increasing at the rates we are currently seeing, thus providing evidence that there must be another mechanism.

Correct, but I want to know that that other mechanism is present now.

The second is tho show that CO2 has continued to rise at the same or an increasing rate, but temperatures haven't increased at the same rate;

Again, correct, but I will want to know that the other factors that influenced temperature change were the same as they are now.

and the third is to show a correlation with a mechanism other than CO2.

Incorrect. Correlation is not cause. I could argue that temperatures have risen in direct correlation with women engaging in the political process or the use of synthetic fibres in ladies underwear, but they are not causes.

My motorcycle slowed down yesterday because I had my fingers on the brake, therefore when it slowed down this morning I must have had my fingers on the brake too. Or was it because I was riding up a hill and hadn't increased my throttle opening? Or was I running out of gas? The independent variables need to be constant or accounted for in the final calculation, and that is where I think you will struggle.

[Jantar]

It could be, but all the research suggests that the earth is not meant to be entering a warming cycle. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the only source of warming big enough to heat the planet is the sun, and Jantar has identified that solar energy is decreasing.....

Here's an experiment for you:

Place a pot of water on the stove and turn up the elment to its lowest setting. Wait until a few minutes and record its temperature. Now turn the thermostat up to a quarter, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature, turn it up to half, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature, turn it up to full, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature. I bet its still increasing.

Now turn it back to 3/4, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature. It is now on a cooling cycle, but guess what, I bet its still increasing. Turn it back to half, wait 30 seconds and measure the temperature, guess what, I bet its still increasing.

Its just like our seasons, the hottest part of summer comes around one month after the longest day, and the coolest part of winter comes around one month after the shortest day.

We have been through a warming cycle with positive PDO, active solar cycles etc, but now the PDO has turned negative around 10 years ago, and the solar cycles appear to entering a grand minima. There has now been no significant warming since 1995 according to 3 of the 4 temperature data sets, and 2 of them are now starting to show a cooling trend. I'll present the actual data later in the week when I can work from home.

[oneofsix]

No, Ockham's razor. The most logical and simplest explanation is usually the best.



Correct, but I want to know that that other mechanism is present now.



Again, correct, but I will want to know that the other factors that influenced temperature change were the same as they are now.



Incorrect. Correlation is not cause. I could argue that temperatures have risen in direct correlation with women engaging in the political process or the use of synthetic fibres in ladies underwear, but they are not causes.

My motorcycle slowed down yesterday because I had my fingers on the brake, therefore when it slowed down this morning I must have had my fingers on the brake too. Or was it because I was riding up a hill and hadn't increased my throttle opening? Or was I running out of gas? The independent variables need to be constant or accounted for in the final calculation, and that is where I think you will struggle.

Ockham's razor is exactly what you reject when you reject the sun as the primary source of the warming and go on trying to justify all these complicated CO2 theories.

[shrub]

There has now been no significant warming since 1995 according to 3 of the 4 temperature data sets, and 2 of them are now starting to show a cooling trend. I'll present the actual data later in the week when I can work from home.

I believe you are incorrect. I will be very interested to see what you have and I trust you will provide me with sources.

The following contradict you:

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ew-study-finds

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...=NSF&from=news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...mest-on-record

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicator...cfm#globalTemp

[shrub]

Ockham's razor is exactly what you reject when you reject the sun as the primary source of the warming and go on trying to justify all these complicated CO2 theories.

*sighs* No, i never dismissed the sun as the primary cause of warming. I merely pointed out (and Jantar supported me) that solar activity was declining at the same time temperature was increasing, therefore it is something else that is causing the rise in temperature and the simplest and most logical something else is atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases causing heat to be retained.