Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Just because you say that doesn't mean it's true.

Weather IS the way that the climate manifests itself to us. I can't walk outside and see the climate. If the climate gets warmer then it has an effect on the weather. To say that the climate doesn't manifest itself in the weather is to totally disagree with the climate change arguments.

As I explained we're not talking about a microclimate or an event like flooding in one particular city. We had an event which affected the whole of Northern Europe which these people failed to predict........

If climate doesn't influence weather that much then why are scientists so worried about the effect of climate change on the weather? :rotflmao:

---

Climate is the probability of something happening. For example when people talk about 10 year floods or 100 year floods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

Nuclear physics is a theory but it doesn't stop it nuclear power stations working. There comes a time when a theory is significantly ratified for it to be used as a fact. The theory of man made global warming HAS reached this level. If it is proven wrong then that is OK but any alternative theories have a long way to go before reaching this level. Another thing is that carbon dioxide levels are only causing the climate to change this time, other times it was other things. I cannot understand why can believe that factors can change the climate yet not believe that greenhouse gases can despite the fact that of all the known factors it is the one rising significantly at a rate that would cause a temperature rise similar to the one that is occurring even with all other factors considered. Scientists and Governments are so sure about this that they are willing to invest large amounts of money. The only reason you don't know for sure is that you have not critically examined every relevant study in detail. Considering the interdisciplinary nature of climate research it is beyond the means of any one person to do that as no one really posesses all the necessary knowledge. The discovery and acceptance of man made climate change one of the greatest scientific achievements in mankinds history. Its a shame that the main opposition seems to be one that promotes a disbelief in the scientific method and of scientists as well as the idea that of promoting ideas for the current global warming that are generally ignorant.

---

The thing is like I said if the number of dachshunds increased at the same rate as the rate of increase in temperature then we could reasonably assume that dachshunds are the cause of global warming.

The argument that sceptics use is that we don't truly understand the climate yet so we can't just come out and say it's CO2 and not look into other possible causes. That's all I'm trying to put across.

Daniel, scientific fact implies an element of doubt you don't need to keep repeating it. A scientific fact must be capable of being proved wrong otherwise it isn't science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The thing is like I said if the number of dachshunds increased at the same rate as the rate of increase in temperature then we could reasonably assume that dachshunds are the cause of global warming.

The argument that sceptics use is that we don't truly understand the climate yet so we can't just come out and say it's CO2 and not look into other possible causes. That's all I'm trying to put across.

---

Therefore the sceptics are portraying climatologists wrongly, as the have looked into other possible causes and have quantified the warming effect of CO2 on a basic level and the predictions match the current level of warming.

computer modelling of anything uses formulas and conclusions allowed to it by it's human programer. In short, if a certain conclusion is never programmed in as a possibility, then it can never be reached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

In a way the tobbaco example is a good one. Yes people who smoked coughed and many died from lung diseases however, smoking has never been proven to be the exclusive cause of theses diseases. I'm not saying smoking is healthy or that smoking will not harm you. What I am saying is that people that don't smoke are afflicted with these same diseases. Also ignored is that many of the people also spent a life time in heavy industries breathing chemicals, coal dust, ash, and silica particles, etc. In the US, the tobbaco companies didn't lose the lawsuits over health issues, they lost them when it was proved they were "juicing" their products to make them more addictive. I don't think anybody here disputes the climate is changing, the dispute is over whether we are the cause, a factor in the cause i.e., speeding up what would occur anyway, or completely innocent of all charges. If additional taxes are to be taken to deal with climate change I feel the money would be better used to help people and animals adapt to the changes as they come instead of trying to prevent what you can't stop. China is often cited as a major emissions player and they are going to do what they want. They are large enough and militarily strong enough to pretty much shrug off any sanctions you may care to hit them with.

---

The tobacco example is a great one. In fact some of the PR firms involved with shedding doubt onto health effects of smoking are involved with shedding doubt about climate change.

How do people or animals adapt to climate change? Look at some of the effects:
If the sea levels rise as predicted we will see many millions of people driven off their land by the ocean. Where do these people go? How do you replace the valuable crop lands that will be submerged? A few nations are already feeling the effects of the rising sea levels. Not to mention what it will do to many cities and infrastructure.

The ocean is getting more acidic. This is a direct result of increasing CO2 levels. What does this mean? any invertebrate sea creature will have a much harder time calcifying its exoskeleton once the PH of the ocean drops to a certain level. This is not something that corals or shellfish can readily adapt to. It just does not chemically work. So thats an entire ecosystem destroyed.

Bad news to for you anyone living in the UK. AGW predictions show you getting much much colder.

Just some of the bad news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

Try reading that again to see if it makes any sense now that it's written down.

Climate is the long term average and variations of the weather. We know that this is the wettest summer "on record" as we have measuring systems and records that go back about 400 years in the UK. Now tell me how we can infer whether or not the UK had rain/weather events such as we recently have experienced before records began? Tree rings / C14 records only tell us about the climate, i.e. how the seasons or the yearly "average weather" or climate affected the living beings at that time. It doesn't tell us that all the rain in that particular year fell in one day and it was beautiful sunshine for the rest of the year, nor does it tell us that it drizzled non-stop for 365 days. They're called "weather forecasts" and not "climate forecasts" for a reason.

Back to my original point - climate modelling is just that - simulating changes in the parameters that define air temperature, sea temperature and so on in order to better understand what happens if such events were to occur. These simulations do not account for the day-to-day variations in climate, i.e. what we defined as the weather, and only give mean estimates within certain percentage errors. Modern supercomputers can barely forecast the weather for a week in advance as the parameters that affect the development of weather systems are inordinately complex. Climate modelling, in contrast, is much easier due to the recorded information that we have, and our (reasonable) understanding of the local (i.e. Earth-bound) parameters that affect the climate.

---

Well it's not been confirmed that this has been the wettest summer because there are different ways of measuring. Rainfall is measured in more places now than ever before. But it is up there with the wettest summers ever. So was it wetter now than in the past? Quite possibly. All we know is that is was wet!

As I said the climate manifests itself in the weather that we experience. Why is it that scientists used climate change to explain the summer when you're saying that there's no relationship?

I'll be perfectly honest and say that I don't think scientists really know how a climate operates and what triggers, tipping points and factors we're dealing with. Something is happening and CO2 has been latched onto as an indicator because it seems to be rising sharply at the same temperature is rising.

I'd hate to see the polar bears have a rough time of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

As I said the climate manifests itself in the weather that we experience. Why is it that scientists used climate change to explain the summer when you're saying that there's no relationship?

---

That is not my point at all. A change in climate necessarily points to a change in the average weather. I'm suggesting to you that having a "wettest summer on record" may be a spike in the overall average for the year - look at April, it was 27 degrees and everyone thought we were in for a major drought. Wait until the figures come out for 2007 to see if it was a "wet" year or a "hot year", and how that correllates to the overall climate in the past 10-20-50 years and then we can start to compare this year with the overall change in the planet's climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

Nuclear physics is a theory but it doesn't stop it nuclear power stations working. There comes a time when a theory is significantly ratified for it to be used as a fact. The theory of man made global warming HAS reached this level. If it is proven wrong then that is OK but any alternative theories have a long way to go before reaching this level. Another thing is that carbon dioxide levels are only causing the climate to change this time, other times it was other things. I cannot understand why can believe that factors can change the climate yet not believe that greenhouse gases can despite the fact that of all the known factors it is the one rising significantly at a rate that would cause a temperature rise similar to the one that is occurring even with all other factors considered. Scientists and Governments are so sure about this that they are willing to invest large amounts of money. The only reason you don't know for sure is that you have not critically examined every relevant study in detail. Considering the interdisciplinary nature of climate research it is beyond the means of any one person to do that as no one really posesses all the necessary knowledge. The discovery and acceptance of man made climate change one of the greatest scientific achievements in mankinds history. Its a shame that the main opposition seems to be one that promotes a disbelief in the scientific method and of scientists as well as the idea that of promoting ideas for the current global warming that are generally ignorant.

---

The thing is you can observe nuclear physics. You can have a reactor and you can monitor it and you can understand the substance at work and what is being done to it and how it will react. Just like you predict what goes on in a microclimate when you know what factors are being applied. The thing is that the earth is not as simple as one mountain range and the effects that it will have on a nearby deep valley. It's complex and to think that we've got it right with our first assumption of how it works with only a few years of data is a bit presumptuous. That's all I'm suggesting. It's amazing the strength with which the enviro-stazi put their views across as being near enough to being proven fact.