Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
A basic-level explanation of what a theory is.
Another source that provides an explanation of where GWL's thinking is going south.
A third source just to drive it home.
A law is absolutely not a "proven" theory, or an idea with more support than a theory.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
GreyWolfLord wrote: You know, everytime someone tosses around the 97%, it just reminds me how much people are listening to media rather than scientists... Non sequitor. The 97% consensus was found and reported BY scientists based on multiple studies. Thus, acknowledging the 97% consensus IS listening to scientists.
GreyWolfLord wrote: ...but it doesn't have enough evidence or proof to be a law. Scientific theories NEVER become scientific laws... the difference between the two has nothing to do with evidence/proof. They are completely different things. Scientific laws are just observations of simple repeatable phenomena. Scientific theories are explanations which fit all known observations.
So, the laws of gravity are observations of how objects interact via gravity under various circumstances. Theories of gravity attempt to explain WHAT gravity is and WHY those things happen.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: GreyWolfLord wrote: You know, everytime someone tosses around the 97%, it just reminds me how much people are listening to media rather than scientists... Non sequitor. The 97% consensus was found and reported BY scientists based on multiple studies. Thus, acknowledging the 97% consensus IS listening to scientists.
GreyWolfLord wrote: ...but it doesn't have enough evidence or proof to be a law. Scientific theories NEVER become scientific laws... the difference between the two has nothing to do with evidence/proof. They are completely different things. Scientific laws are just observations of simple repeatable phenomena. Scientific theories are explanations which fit all known observations.
So, the laws of gravity are observations of how objects interact via gravity under various circumstances. Theories of gravity attempt to explain WHAT gravity is and WHY those things happen. Actually, it was even shown here that this statistic was pretty twisted from the actual numbers. In addition, but separate, as I have several (close) relatives that directly work in the field...they would say there isn't anything that has a 97% agreement rate in science (probably even including the specifics of gravity)...and DEFINATELY not in the field of climate change (which is one place I'd expect they'd be aware of such a consensus that HUMANS are causing climate change...though they MAY be willing to say near 100% probably DO agree that there IS climate change).
It's akin to saying Obama won 97% of the popular vote in the last election. (possible to actually get that if you twist the numbers the same way they twisted the 97% idea from the CC folks).
That may sit well with a bunch of people, but those who actually know the numbers are going to be scratching their head.
OR, sort of like people saying the law of gravity doesn't exist and there is no difference between the law of gravity and the theory of quantum gravity. (granted, I AM more the lawyer type than the physicist type, but I DID go to a physics site and the national physics associations definitions and websites to gather the information including to ensure that they still used the law of physics and what their definitions of a theory vs. a law was. I actually ripped the example directly from one of theirs. Still, legal instead of science...but I figured that the physicists would post good examples).
It's kind of weird when people start doing things like that...
But hey...whatever I suppose you want to believe.
On the topic of the 97%...as my spouse is not willing to deal with my bugging her about it at this time...it looks like this time around I'm on my own in the evidence department. I get the idea that if you guys want to discuss facts or questions dealing with her line of work and accurate statements on CC she MIGHT be willing to talk with me about it, but not about things that she considers nonsense.
SOOOOO...her suggestion was if it was all that important...I could just "google it." Riiiiiight.
Anyways...as I'm NOT the scientist she is...here's my attempt at some google links from the MEDIA (which are the same guys that give us the 97% which doesn't raise my expectations of stellar science being presented in any of them.).
97% number is doctored
Quote:
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
Quote:
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor...
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
Quote:
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Quote:
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
97% claim is inaccurate
Quote:
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming....
...To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
My spouse would probably state (as from previous statements of hers) that the 97% that agree that there is climate change is actually TOO LOW...that this percentage is actually probably around 99% or more.
However, the amount of them that feel it is mostly caused by humans is probably high, but nowhere near a total consensus as something like 97% makes it out to be. If it were that high, a LOT of roadblocks against taking certain actions would no longer be a problem. Pushing something like this makes their job harder rather than easier because it gives people a false sense of security that they don't need to do anything more to help those who need certain issues tackled with local politics or otherwise.
GreyWolfLord wrote: You know, everytime someone tosses around the 97%, it just reminds me how much people are listening to media rather than scientists...
But hey, they believe in Alien UFO's, and Bigfoot too which go hand in hand with that 97% so....
there is a triangle in the 7 in 97%....
illuminati confirmed
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Murdoch owns a number of liberal news sources as well as Fox News, so I don't think National Geographic will change much. Typically, if it's news, Murdoch is involved somewhere.
Edit: And, in my investigation, it turned out he already owned the National Geographic channel for TV.
Fox News is just his pet station to voice his real views; the rest are all pure business.
Oh, and my contribution to the climate debate: There might not be much warming over the next couple of decades. Climate is massively more complex than just the gases in the atmosphere. But given the debate has stupidly focused mostly on the gases instead of being more proactive about taking everything into consideration, I foresee this being a major hurdle to efforts to reduce pollution before everything hits home.
Either that, or the Earth is trying to drive the IPCC bonkers before it slams us into the stone age.
I have concluded that the actual percentage that humans are responsible for changes in climate is 12, 12 percent. Therefore, since it is not >97 percent, for this reason, that it is less than 90 something percent, there is no reason for me to do anything at all.
or
I have concluded that that the actual percentage that humans are responsible for changes in climate is 12 percent, holy s~&~, 12 percent, wait, so we have some responsibility, some, a little, damn, why don't we do something about that, you know, knock it down to like four or two even, I mean, man if we can make things better, rather than worse, why wouldn't we?
please select the point of view you would like to tell your grandchildren you selected.
CaptainGemini wrote: Murdoch owns a number of liberal news sources as well as Fox News, so I don't think National Geographic will change much. Typically, if it's news, Murdoch is involved somewhere.
Edit: And, in my investigation, it turned out he already owned the National Geographic channel for TV.
Fox News is just his pet station to voice his real views; the rest are all pure business.
Oh, and my contribution to the climate debate: There might not be much warming over the next couple of decades. Climate is massively more complex than just the gases in the atmosphere. But given the debate has stupidly focused mostly on the gases instead of being more proactive about taking everything into consideration, I foresee this being a major hurdle to efforts to reduce pollution before everything hits home.
Either that, or the Earth is trying to drive the IPCC bonkers before it slams us into the stone age.
I don't think that report says what you think it says. Mostly, they're not making detailed predictions for the next couple of decades.
Quote: Record or near record temperatures last year and so far this year, along with the expected warming effects of El Niño, mean that decadal temperature trends are likely to increase. Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to La Niña or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years. Quote: Further long-term global warming is expected over the coming decades but variations of climate worldwide from year to year or decade to decade will always depend on the subsequent variations in the patterns of climate variability described in this report.
thejeff wrote: CaptainGemini wrote: Murdoch owns a number of liberal news sources as well as Fox News, so I don't think National Geographic will change much. Typically, if it's news, Murdoch is involved somewhere.
Edit: And, in my investigation, it turned out he already owned the National Geographic channel for TV.
Fox News is just his pet station to voice his real views; the rest are all pure business.
Oh, and my contribution to the climate debate: There might not be much warming over the next couple of decades. Climate is massively more complex than just the gases in the atmosphere. But given the debate has stupidly focused mostly on the gases instead of being more proactive about taking everything into consideration, I foresee this being a major hurdle to efforts to reduce pollution before everything hits home.
Either that, or the Earth is trying to drive the IPCC bonkers before it slams us into the stone age.
I don't think that report says what you think it says. Mostly, they're not making detailed predictions for the next couple of decades.
Quote: Record or near record temperatures last year and so far this year, along with the expected warming effects of El Niño, mean that decadal temperature trends are likely to increase. Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to La Niña or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years. Quote: Further long-term global warming is expected over the coming decades but variations of climate worldwide from year to year or decade to decade will always depend on the subsequent variations in the patterns of climate variability described in this report. The AMO operates in 50-90 year quasi-cycles. Regimes can last around 10 to 20 years.
Here's the relevant quotes from the articlw on the possibility:
Quote: The current warm phase is now 20 years long and historical precedent suggests a return to relatively cool conditions could occur within a few years (Knight et al., 2005). However, the short observational record precludes a confident prediction based on observations alone. Quote: What would a shift towards relatively cooler North Atlantic conditions mean for our climate? Historically, the AMO has shown an impact on temperature and precipitation in Northern Hemisphere summer (Fig. 10). In cold AMO phases, the continents surrounding the North Atlantic generally have cooler summers (Knight et al. 2006). Summertime precipitation in Northern Europe tends to decrease as a result of a northward shift in the path of low pressure centres that bring clouds and rain (Folland et al. 2009, Sutton and Dong 2012). In contrast, summer rainfall over the United States is increased by cold Atlantic conditions (Enfield et al. 2001, Sutton and Hodson 2005). Rainfall in the African Sahel region is also reduced because cold North Atlantic conditions favour a southward displacement of the tropical rainfall zone that brings this region its seasonal rains (Giannini et al. 2003). In addition, this shift modifies wind patterns, which is one of the factors inhibiting the development of strong Atlantic hurricanes (Knight et al. 2006). Observational (Folland et al. 2013) and model (Knight et al. 2005) estimates further suggest AMO shifts have an effect on global mean near-surface temperatures of about 0.1˚C. A rapid AMO decline could therefore maintain the current slowdown in global warming longer than would otherwise be the case. Paper says exactly what I said it did.
CaptainGemini wrote: Murdoch owns a number of liberal news sources I'd say rather that he owns a few news sources that have managed to remain mostly unbiased.
CaptainGemini wrote: Climate is massively more complex than just the gases in the atmosphere. But given the debate has stupidly focused mostly on the gases instead of being more proactive about taking everything into consideration, I foresee this being a major hurdle to efforts to reduce pollution before everything hits home. Climate science DOES take 'everything into consideration', and the focus on greenhouse gases is simply because that is the factor currently causing significant changes.
As to heat moving around within the climate system causing 'decreased warming' at the surface... it always amazes me that people could think a temporary decline in the rate of atmospheric surface temperature increase is at all meaningful when the rate of increase of heat within the climate system as a whole hasn't changed. It's like thinking that there is no such thing as flooding because it isn't raining right now.
CBDunkerson wrote: I'd say rather that he owns a few news sources that have managed to remain mostly unbiased. Fair enough.
Quote: Climate science DOES take 'everything into consideration', and the focus on greenhouse gases is simply because that is the factor currently causing significant changes. Climate science ain't the debate. You're arguing against the wrong stance.
Quote: As to heat moving around within the climate system causing 'decreased warming' at the surface... it always amazes me that people could think a temporary decline in the rate of atmospheric surface temperature increase is at all meaningful when the rate of increase of heat within the climate system as a whole hasn't changed. It's like thinking that there is no such thing as flooding because it isn't raining right now. Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now. Dam bursts and other human technology failures, the other common cause, are generally too rare to be a real concern for most people. Naturally, they apply the same logic to climate as a whole.
Of course, most people are not educated on climate, including a surprising number of those who are supporters. You'd be surprised how many people argue that the very heat movement you're talking about is purely a denialist lie.
That ignorance on both sides is the point of my complaint about the debate focusing so much on gases.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
CaptainGemini wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: I'd say rather that he owns a few news sources that have managed to remain mostly unbiased. Fair enough.
Quote: Climate science DOES take 'everything into consideration', and the focus on greenhouse gases is simply because that is the factor currently causing significant changes. Climate science ain't the debate. You're arguing against the wrong stance.
Quote: As to heat moving around within the climate system causing 'decreased warming' at the surface... it always amazes me that people could think a temporary decline in the rate of atmospheric surface temperature increase is at all meaningful when the rate of increase of heat within the climate system as a whole hasn't changed. It's like thinking that there is no such thing as flooding because it isn't raining right now. Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now. Dam bursts and other human technology failures, the other common cause, are generally too rare to be a real concern for most people. Naturally, they apply the same logic to climate as a whole.
Of course, most people are not educated on climate, including a surprising number of those who are supporters. You'd be surprised how many people argue that the very heat movement you're talking about is purely a denialist lie.
That ignorance on both sides is the point of my complaint about the debate focusing so much on gases. Flooding often lags the rain. In fact, it can occur downstream in a place where it hasn't rained at all. :)
The deniers may not be lying about the heat movements, but they lie when they use the heat movement to deny climate change.
thejeff wrote: CaptainGemini wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: I'd say rather that he owns a few news sources that have managed to remain mostly unbiased. Fair enough.
Quote: Climate science DOES take 'everything into consideration', and the focus on greenhouse gases is simply because that is the factor currently causing significant changes. Climate science ain't the debate. You're arguing against the wrong stance.
Quote: As to heat moving around within the climate system causing 'decreased warming' at the surface... it always amazes me that people could think a temporary decline in the rate of atmospheric surface temperature increase is at all meaningful when the rate of increase of heat within the climate system as a whole hasn't changed. It's like thinking that there is no such thing as flooding because it isn't raining right now. Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now. Dam bursts and other human technology failures, the other common cause, are generally too rare to be a real concern for most people. Naturally, they apply the same logic to climate as a whole.
Of course, most people are not educated on climate, including a surprising number of those who are supporters. You'd be surprised how many people argue that the very heat movement you're talking about is purely a denialist lie.
That ignorance on both sides is the point of my complaint about the debate focusing so much on gases. Flooding often lags the rain. In fact, it can occur downstream in a place where it hasn't rained at all. :)
The deniers may not be lying about the heat movements, but they lie when they use the heat movement to deny climate change. A lot of flooding isn't of the river or ocean variety, to further muddy it.
That they are. Which is why I said I foresee it being a hurdle.
CaptainGemini wrote: Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now.
Which was rather my point... just because various ocean/atmosphere heat transfer cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, et cetera) can cause the atmosphere to warm less quickly (it isn't raining right now), that doesn't change the fact that the climate as a whole is still warming at the same rate and the atmospheric temperature will surge up faster when that cycle comes back around (rain is still a global phenomenon and will cause flooding again in the future).
The general public is indeed often ignorant of the details of climate science (and many other subjects)... but that doesn't change the fact that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of current climate change.
CBDunkerson wrote: CaptainGemini wrote: Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now.
Which was rather my point... just because various ocean/atmosphere heat transfer cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, et cetera) can cause the atmosphere to warm less quickly (it isn't raining right now), that doesn't change the fact that the climate as a whole is still warming at the same rate and the atmospheric temperature will surge up faster when that cycle comes back around (rain is still a global phenomenon and will cause flooding again in the future).
The general public is indeed often ignorant of the details of climate science (and many other subjects)... but that doesn't change the fact that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of current climate change. Exactly. As an example, moving from the Atlantic (which might be entering a cooling phase according to that report) to the Pacific, some of the apparent lag in warming can be attributed to the strong El Nino in 1998, followed by weak El Nino and La Nina years. When that cycle flips again, another strong El Nino will likely be much hotter than past strong El Ninos. Even the cool cycles now are up in the range that the hot ones used to be.
These cycles occur within the larger pattern of warming. They make it a little harder to see and easy to intentionally confuse people, but it doesn't really take much research to pull the larger pattern out of the noise of the smaller cycles. And it really is the greenhouse gasses driving that larger pattern.
CBDunkerson wrote: CaptainGemini wrote: Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now.
Which was rather my point... just because various ocean/atmosphere heat transfer cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, et cetera) can cause the atmosphere to warm less quickly (it isn't raining right now), that doesn't change the fact that the climate as a whole is still warming at the same rate and the atmospheric temperature will surge up faster when that cycle comes back around (rain is still a global phenomenon and will cause flooding again in the future). Um, you might want to reexamine the bolded and italicized statements. You switched from a short-term measurement to a medium-term average without indication when oversimplifying your statements. To someone less educated, this could easily come across as you contradicting yourself.
Also, you're trying to argue a predictive statement as a certainty. That is what typically gets climate science in trouble and serves to do the most to aid the skeptics. After all, if a severe drought sets in, by the time the rain came your reputation would already have been destroyed to the point no one pays attention to what you say.
Quote: The general public is indeed often ignorant of the details of climate science (and many other subjects)... but that doesn't change the fact that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of current climate change. Secondary driver. The primary driver is water vapor, which isn't actually a greenhouse gas*. However, the greenhouse gases are the primary point of system disruption; so even though they are not the primary mechanism of climate change, they are still the primary cause of it due to the disrupted temperature regulation systems.
There's a lot of deniers who know the actual science on that one and are not afraid to use links to NASA and similar organizations to prove their point as part of a verbal beat down.
Edit-
*Water Vapor technically isn't a gas, if I remember my science correctly. It is still a greenhouse agent, though. Just not a greenhouse gas. But, then, not all greenhouse agents come in gaseous form.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
CaptainGemini wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: CaptainGemini wrote: Bad example on the flooding. Most sane people, even those with a science education, would point out that a lack of rain right now is generally evidence that it's not flooding right now.
Which was rather my point... just because various ocean/atmosphere heat transfer cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, et cetera) can cause the atmosphere to warm less quickly (it isn't raining right now), that doesn't change the fact that the climate as a whole is still warming at the same rate and the atmospheric temperature will surge up faster when that cycle comes back around (rain is still a global phenomenon and will cause flooding again in the future). Um, you might want to reexamine the bolded and italicized statements. You switched from a short-term measurement to a medium-term average without indication when oversimplifying your statements. To someone less educated, this could easily come across as you contradicting yourself.
Also, you're trying to argue a predictive statement as a certainty. That is what typically gets climate science in trouble and serves to do the most to aid the skeptics. After all, if a severe drought sets in, by the time the rain came your reputation would already have been destroyed to the point no one pays attention to what you say.
Quote: The general public is indeed often ignorant of the details of climate science (and many other subjects)... but that doesn't change the fact that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of current climate change. Secondary driver. The primary driver is water vapor, which isn't actually a greenhouse gas. However, the greenhouse gases are the primary point of system disruption; so even though they are not the primary mechanism of climate change, they are still the primary cause of it due to the disrupted temperature regulation systems.
There's a lot of deniers who know the actual science on that one and are not afraid to use links to NASA and similar organizations... Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It's not a primary driver of climate change. Largely because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is limited by the temperature. It can't, by itself, drive a disastrous feedback loop - it rains out.
As other greenhouse gasses raise the temperature, more water vapor can be held, raising it even further, but that leaves the other gasses as the primary driver, even if they're not the primary greenhouse gasses.
thejeff wrote: Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It's not a primary driver of climate change. Largely because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is limited by the temperature. It can't, by itself, drive a disastrous feedback loop - it rains out.
As other greenhouse gasses raise the temperature, more water vapor can be held, raising it even further, but that leaves the other gasses as the primary driver, even if they're not the primary greenhouse gasses.
I was wrong on that one.
Okay, primary driver on greenhouse gases.
And, actually, there's some evidence within the ice core data that water vapor by itself can drive a disastrous feedback loop. Not strong evidence, but some. In addition, NASA themselves even showed back in 2008 that increased water vapor feedbacks into itself as well as enhancing the feedbacks from all of the other greenhouse gases. Meaning that, with the proper conditions, water vapor actually can use its self-reinforcing mechanism to be the cause of a climatic disaster.
But, it is still the primary driver of the climate change itself; that's long-established science. Without it, the other gases don't have near the impact. Which is why I differentiated between driver of climate change and cause of climate change.
CaptainGemini wrote: Um, you might want to reexamine the bolded and italicized statements. You switched from a short-term measurement to a medium-term average without indication when oversimplifying your statements. Um... no, I didn't.
I cited the difference between looking at a tiny portion of the climate system vs the entire climate system.
Quote: Also, you're trying to argue a predictive statement as a certainty. That is what typically gets climate science in trouble and serves to do the most to aid the skeptics. Yes, I am certain that it will rain again some time in the future. If climate skeptics want to challenge me on that prediction I won't stop them.
Quote: Secondary driver. The primary driver is water vapor, which isn't actually a greenhouse gas*. Water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, but is NOT a driver of global warming. Rather, it is a feedback.
OK GreyWolfLord. I understand your belief on the subject but it is overwhelming believed by the scientific community. My husband works for RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) and the UK government. He associates with BAS (British Antarctic Survey) and the UK weather service. All of these associations 100% agree greenhouse gases are causing major climate change. Plus we are both Canadians. There is a known muzzle on climate and ecological science in Canada from the conservative government. And my husband has worked with multiple universities there and environment Canada. All of those places also believe greenhouse gas emissions are driving global climate change. I also have friends in Sweden the states, Russia, Japan, and Australia. They all work with various ecological and government agencies and guess what again none of them or their employers deny climate change science. I'm sorry but this is the truth
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
GreyWolfLord wrote: On the topic of the 97%...as my spouse is not willing to deal with my bugging her about it at this time...it looks like this time around I'm on my own in the evidence department. I get the idea that if you guys want to discuss facts or questions dealing with her line of work and accurate statements on CC she MIGHT be willing to talk with me about it, but not about things that she considers nonsense.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not particularly interested in the work of your wife, or her opinions. Or that of any one person by themselves. Feel free however to link any work that she has published in a peer-reviewed publication.
The whole point of science is that it doesn't hang on any one person's work, whether its Joe the Plumber, or Steven Hawking. It's the peer review that validates the process, people checking other people's work. There is an overwhelming consensus that Human activity has a decisive impact on climate change since the the Industrial Age went full bore, in particular, the increased dumping of greenhouses gases, carbon dioxide and others into the atmosphere, that such dumping has been increasing, and that increase maps with the upward curve of 5 year average global temperatures. It has been peer-reviewed to the point where denying this is like denying evolution. Such denials are based on dogma, not science.
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas when it comes to determining the planet's temperature. It's not driving the current heating. Those are two different concepts.
Removing water vapor from the atmosphere would certainly end global warming, but it's not possible. We have oceans and free water. Water vapor is essentially in an equilibrium state - magically scrub all the water vapor from the atmosphere and more will just evaporate and go right back in. Magically dump more into the atmosphere and it will precipitate right out. Heat the planet and more will evaporate, raising the concentration in the atmosphere.
And no, I suppose you can say we don't know exactly what would happen if we suddenly removed all the carbon we've added, but we've got a pretty damn good idea what happens if we keep adding more.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
All this talk about the climate, makes me want to point out, in case you guys didn't hear about this.
Did you know National geographic was bought by the Fox conglomerate? Yeah, crazy. I know.
We actually have a nice analog for the current climate change in the PETM event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), which was a period of incredibly fast global warming precipitated by a large input of CO2 being pumped in the atmosphere. There is still debate over the source of the carbon, but mostly recently I have heard it was the result of uplift of Himalayas resulting in massive subduction of carbon rich continental shelf and/or methane clathrate eruptions. The global warming in that event is probably more severe than most realistic current predictions for our change, but from a geologic perspective it was rapid, in common with today.
MMCJawa wrote: We actually have a nice analog for the current climate change in the PETM event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), which was a period of incredibly fast global warming precipitated by a large input of CO2 being pumped in the atmosphere. There is still debate over the source of the carbon, but mostly recently I have heard it was the result of uplift of Himalayas resulting in massive subduction of carbon rich continental shelf and/or methane clathrate eruptions. The global warming in that event is probably more severe than most realistic current predictions for our change, but from a geologic perspective it was rapid, in common with today. * Starts a pool on when someone comes along in this thread to claim the PETM proves anthropocentric global warming is a hoax to make money and kill most of the human population off. Or something equally insane.
Removed some posts and their replies. Please keep this topical and civil, thank you.
Krensky wrote: MMCJawa wrote: We actually have a nice analog for the current climate change in the PETM event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), which was a period of incredibly fast global warming precipitated by a large input of CO2 being pumped in the atmosphere. There is still debate over the source of the carbon, but mostly recently I have heard it was the result of uplift of Himalayas resulting in massive subduction of carbon rich continental shelf and/or methane clathrate eruptions. The global warming in that event is probably more severe than most realistic current predictions for our change, but from a geologic perspective it was rapid, in common with today. * Starts a pool on when someone comes along in this thread to claim the PETM proves anthropocentric global warming is a hoax to make money and kill most of the human population off. Or something equally insane. While you're at it, start a pool on how long it'll take someone to use this model-based study to argue that the warming is an insignificant threat.
If we see that in Nat Geo under Murdoch, we'll know for certain he's taking it in a dark direction.
|
