Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

As I said peer review does not make something true.

Its not about testing the theory. It cannot be tested as there is only one Earth. It can be modelled and the models are constantly being refined and improving the results. There is nothing else you can do. The ice cores show CO2 and temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. The scientific principles are widely understood. I won't be able to convince you and I shouldn't because I'm not an expert but maybe you need to look at it in another way seeing why the general consensus is true rather just why it isn't and the comebacks to the skeptic argument.

---

Well previous models (not simulations but what has actually happened over the last 4 billion years) contradict what the scientists model's say. Ice core samples show that temperatures have been high at times while CO2 has been low and quite low while CO2 levels have been high. Exactly the opposite of what's supposed to be going on today.

The thing is a climate is so complicated and fairly static thing which we don't understand so I think we'll only know in 20 years time if the models are accurate. The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be.

---

Yeah that's called the weather. Climate is more the seasonal variation over much longer timescales than two days..... :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

---

Let's not get het-up about this. I think people are perfectly entitled to use technical terms if they wish without being told to 'stop'. We now know what it means, which can only be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be.

---

Neither does it mean that it's automatically wrong, or somehow less legitimate a view on the subject than any of your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

---

Under what circumstances would you be convinced otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

Kind of makes you wonder what the world government's reasons are for combating climate change, protecting the planet, preventing extinction, preventing millions or billions dying or as they seem to focus on, minimising the cost to the economy.

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. The biggest fear of any government is that the population they govern will figure out that they don't need as much government as they have, much less to allow it to grow larger. Doesn't matter if they are doing good or not, they just have to look like they are trying to do something about anything to sell their bill of goods. Bear in mind these issues you bring up have their roots outside the government. The private sector brought these to the government and the once the issue got big enough and loud enough, then government, while donning it's superman cape, cried "I'll save you!" and jumped on the band wagon and opened the cash flow gates. Thats why governments love social and welfare programs. Generations of voters that owe their very existance to that monthly government check. Make the people believe they need us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

---

Do you know what's ironic. I was invited by Daniel to view this thread to demonstrate how to debate a point politely and this was the first post I read. Just don't say it's BS whatever you do :laugh:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...3&postcount=29

Dont worry RAH, I don't find the term Anthropogenic Global Warming (or the global warmin attribitable to us humans) confusing in the slightest.

Daniel does have a good point though in asking for some further evidence to your claim about solar fluctiations not being the cause of recent warming. We seem to be in a particulaly turbulant spell of extreem climatic events and the more contributing factors we can discount allows us to concentrate of the few remaining which could mean AGW.

Similarly Daniel, can you provide some credible sources debunking AGW that are not sponsored or linked to bodies that have a vested interest in debunking these theories.

Either way it is a fascinating bedate and I think we all owe it to ourselves and future generations to maintain an open mind. Afterall, reducing the alledged causes of AGW will undoubtly have benefits but if we're wrong and AGW doesn't exist, we would have conserved some resourses and cleaned up our atmosphere a bit. Not much wrong with that.

Just my 5c AU worth (2p)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

Show me where and how the theory of the sun being the cause of the warming trend has been "debunked". Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be. My mum's car once broke down and when it got towed home I said to my dad "has it got fuel in it" and he said "yes" so I said "does it actually have fuel in it?" to which he of course said "yes" so I asked when it had last been filled up and it turned out that it had been filled up two weeks before. My point is that sometimes the obvious things can be the thing that is wrong and sometimes there's no need to look for an insanely complicated and convoluted explanation to something that may be explained by rather simple factors.

I have a lot of time for people who are suggesting that we are causing global warming because it would be stupid not to listen because the stakes are high. But just because the majority of people who get on TV say this is what happening doesn't mean I'll blindly follow. We question the actions of our governments in regards to Iraq and so on. So why not our scientists?

Btw that graph probably stops at 2000 because it might have been made around that time? Hmmmmm. Hardly a reason to consider it inaccurate or misleading.

---

Don't get too aggressive champ. AGW is the best term as what we are talking about is man made global warming. If you don't understand what I mean let me know and I will try to explain further.

Mate, let you fingers do the walking.You never know, a little research might help you out on this subject. A good place to start is http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11650
Or http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
Or this is one of my favourites http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...h-connections/
Unfortunately your simple explanations have already been investigated. Funnily enough, the global climate proved not to be simple.

Well why don't you find a newer graph? Maybe because it is used in a context that is misleading. Where did you get the graph from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

Yeah that's called the weather. Climate is more the seasonal variation over much longer timescales than two days..... :P

---

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Let's not get het-up about this. I think people are perfectly entitled to use technical terms if they wish without being told to 'stop'. We now know what it means, which can only be a good thing.



Neither does it mean that it's automatically wrong, or somehow less legitimate a view on the subject than any of your own.

---

Yes but lets just use terms which don't complicate matters :)

If we wanted to have a discussion on teflon I could said "teflon" "PTFE" or "polytetrafluoroethylene". For the sake of discussion I would of course call it teflon on this forum. If most people read AGW they wouldn't know it meant. Just like if I said "PTFE" or "polytetrafluoroethylene" so to make discussion easier a discussion on a forum which doesn't specialise in the topic being discussed should always be conducted in laymans terms ;) It just minimises confusion and makes for easier discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well previous models (not simulations but what has actually happened over the last 4 billion years) contradict what the scientists model's say. Ice core samples show that temperatures have been high at times while CO2 has been low and quite low while CO2 levels have been high. Exactly the opposite of what's supposed to be going on today.

The thing is a climate is so complicated and fairly static thing which we don't understand so I think we'll only know in 20 years time if the models are accurate. The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

---

It is significantly closer to being fact than the opposition and is a far more widely respected view. I do not believe the media does present it is fact and will generally say things like according to the IPCC etc which is being used as a basis for political decisions.

My personal view is that man made climate change is most likely occurring as it has the weight of scientific opinion behind it. As such the consequences could be catastrophic and action should be taken. While I agree that some theories may be incomplete or flawed disagreeing with them or not acting would be completely illogical. I also believe that the anti man made global warming view should not be presented equally as it has considerably less support.

From a risk assessment point of view the money spent on preventing the risk taking place should be the chance of an event occurring multiplied by the cost of it's consequences. Also factored in should be the chance of detecting it before catastrophic failure and the potential cost after detection relative to the time before catastrophic failure.