michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710 
Likes: 2,985
|
Post by michaelc on May 27, 2023 21:37:48 GMT
Interesting. So couldn't resist a 5 minute google after reading that. The below seems a fair summary. It is established that the further back you go the less accurate these temperature proxies (such as ice cores) become. And in general it seems far from an exact science. So the cynic in me wonders if there is any bias when producing pretty graphs such as the one AdrianC linked to ? www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/07/past-climate-temperature-proxiesI'm in no way qualified to comment, save to say these expert academics believe in the science, as do the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as far as I can tell. They probably also believe in high taxes and providing "gender affirmation" surgery to children. Doesn't mean they're right though. Still, I guess this is an extremely well trodden path that perhaps neither of us want to venture too far down....
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on May 27, 2023 23:15:58 GMT
Interesting. So couldn't resist a 5 minute google after reading that. The below seems a fair summary. It is established that the further back you go the less accurate these temperature proxies (such as ice cores) become. And in general it seems far from an exact science. So the cynic in me wonders if there is any bias when producing pretty graphs such as the one AdrianC linked to ? www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/07/past-climate-temperature-proxiesI'm in no way qualified to comment, save to say these expert academics believe in the science, as do the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as far as I can tell. Interesting. So couldn't resist a 5 minute google after reading that. The below seems a fair summary. It is established that the further back you go the less accurate these temperature proxies (such as ice cores) become. And in general it seems far from an exact science. So the cynic in me wonders if there is any bias when producing pretty graphs such as the one AdrianC linked to ? www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/07/past-climate-temperature-proxiesI'm in no way qualified to comment, save to say these expert academics believe in the science, as do the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as far as I can tell. Scientists believe in what they are funded to believe ... just playing devil's advocate but what's the chance of getting finding to investigate global warming is a myth or it being published/reported if it is. Just watched the Beep interviewing the Moroccan energy minister who suggested that drilling for gas wasn't illogical in a balanced approach to energy security. . gasps of horror amongst the orange powder flagellants
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 27, 2023 23:42:47 GMT
First of all, the same article you reference points out that while the passing of time increases the unreliability of temperature assessments by a particular proxy it then states that it's important to use multiple different proxies and locations to mitigate this. Secondly, it's not the actual value that's most important but the delta to that value over time - if a result is off by .5/1/1.5 degrees over time that's fair enough, but that still shows the gradual pace of change compared to a sudden upswing.
Temperatures have been regularly recorded for the past one and a half centuries using actual measuring equipment (as opposed to assessing carbon presence, tree growth, pollen types/quantities, coral records, snowfall compaction and so on). Throughout this timeframe the temperature has been consistent and hasn't deviated much from the timeframe change consensus going back millennia until we reach a point where the planet's population begins to massively increase. To put this in context it took until the very early 1800's for the population to reach one billion, this then doubled in just over a single century and from the early 1900's to the 21st century we went to 6 billion (tripling in less than 75 years), after which in a single decade we jumped by another billion to 7 billion people and we're now in the year 2023 probably approaching or exceeding 8 billion.
The point of the above is to note that the point on the graph where the temperature starts to go off the rails (using data recorded from scientific instruments - long before the concept of climate change) coincides with the massive increase in population and energy consumption and its corresponding usage of fossil fuels generating CO2 - which has a proven effect on planetary warming. The most notable example, the planet Venus being on average three times warmer than mercury despite being 50% further from the Sun, Earth however is only slightly further out and is massively cooler (160C vs 460C vs 15C) - the difference being atmospheric density and composition. This is a spike we've been watching for the past century or so with no precedent in nature but that corresponds exactly with our increased expulsion of greenhouse gasses while at the same time offering no other viable (I'm looking at you sunspots and shifting orbit) explanations.
The tax rate or the number of trans kids running around has bugger all to do with this, it's chemistry and physics.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 27, 2023 23:53:55 GMT
Scientists believe in what they are funded to believe ... just playing devil's advocate but what's the chance of getting finding to investigate global warming is a myth or it being published/reported if it is. Just watched the Beep interviewing the Moroccan energy minister who suggested that drilling for gas wasn't illogical in a balanced approach to energy security. . gasps of horror amongst the orange powder flagellants Indeed, a scientist can be paid to claim anything - they then however need to have that published and peer reviewed by others (including those on the 'other side'). As for your other query... If only there was an industry with an absolutely colossal amount of money and political power that could fund these scientists in a way that outspends governments? I wonder if this already happened, whether it was eventually found out and whether that contributed to the delay in introducing alternate energy sources? For the record, these morons holding up traffic and redecorating works of art are absolute imbeciles and need to be held to account. Their message is right, their working methodology is unequivocally, categorically wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 0:12:30 GMT
I'm in no way qualified to comment, save to say these expert academics believe in the science, as do the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as far as I can tell. I'm in no way qualified to comment, save to say these expert academics believe in the science, as do the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as far as I can tell. Scientists believe in what they are funded to believe ... just playing devil's advocate but what's the chance of getting finding to investigate global warming is a myth or it being published/reported if it is. Just watched the Beep interviewing the Moroccan energy minister who suggested that drilling for gas wasn't illogical in a balanced approach to energy security. . gasps of horror amongst the orange powder flagellants what a good sensible approach that would be. i fully agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 0:18:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 0:23:18 GMT
I think we need to put this here again... Yes, the temperature has changed before. NEVER so much, so rapidly. xkcd.com/1732/According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact." Climate change records have been around for ~50yrs.... the world is 4.5 billion years old.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 28, 2023 0:25:32 GMT
I believe the page you linked, the one that basically debunks the petition. Forget the bits that mention links to fossil fuel companies etc., I'm more than happy for them to have their say as long as the 99.9% of more than 88,000 climate change studies agree that humans have accelerated the phenomenon, largely due to carbon emissions. and Moreover, the last 15 warmest years on record (my insert - after over 150 years of recording) have occurred since 2005, with the most recent eight years being the warmest, according to NASA. gets equal prominence.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 0:34:33 GMT
I believe the page you linked, the one that basically debunks the petition. Forget the bits that mention links to fossil fuel companies etc., I'm more than happy for them to have their say as long as the 99.9% of more than 88,000 climate change studies agree that humans have accelerated the phenomenon, largely due to carbon emissions. and Moreover, the last 15 warmest years on record (my insert - after over 150 years of recording) have occurred since 2005, with the most recent eight years being the warmest, according to NASA. gets equal prominence. the earth is 4.5billion years old... and you spout 150yrs of records... you do the maths. ... 99.9% over how many years? again .. the earth is 4.5 billion years old... are you silly enough to believe that a report based over 150yrs (and no its ~50yrs) of study can determine the climatic future of the earth?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on May 28, 2023 0:37:04 GMT
I'm in no way qualified to comment, save to say these expert academics believe in the science, as do the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as far as I can tell. They probably also believe in high taxes and providing "gender affirmation" surgery to children. Doesn't mean they're right though. Still, I guess this is an extremely well trodden path that perhaps neither of us want to venture too far down.... ...but just suppose they are right? Given the massive global scientific weight behind the climate change projections, versus the seemingly few qualified detractors, it strikes me the science is pretty mature now and all pointing in one direction, so shouldn't we at least hear the message? Do we distrust experts to such a degree now that we just ignore them all? The real political headache is in striking the right balance between the expert scientific message and the expectations of modern living. Here we need adults to lead us, rather than a crop of sound bite, window dressing, adversarial parliamentarians. I am not hopeful...
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 0:45:09 GMT
They probably also believe in high taxes and providing "gender affirmation" surgery to children. Doesn't mean they're right though. Still, I guess this is an extremely well trodden path that perhaps neither of us want to venture too far down.... ...but just suppose they are right? Given the massive global scientific weight behind the climate change projections, versus the seemingly few qualified detractors, it strikes me the science is pretty mature now and all pointing in one direction, so shouldn't we at least hear the message? Do we distrust experts to such a degree now that we just ignore them all? The real political headache is in striking the right balance between the expert scientific message and the expectations of modern living. Here we need adults to lead us, rather than a crop of sound bite, window dressing, adversarial parliamentarians. I am not hopeful... Why dont you just say "flat earthers".... we dont agree with you.. so we MUST be wrong.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 28, 2023 1:04:04 GMT
the earth is 4.5billion years old... and you spout 150yrs of records... you do the maths. ... 99.9% over how many years? again .. the earth is 4.5 billion years old... are you silly enough to believe that a report based over 150yrs (and no its ~50yrs) of study can determine the climatic future of the earth? I 'spout' 150 years of precise measurements alongside multiple sources of long term data sources going back millennia. 4.5 billion years ago this planet was a barely coherent mass of molten elements - spoiler alert, we don't live 4.5 billion years ago and couldn't possibly have (it was a bloody hell-hole). Our 'current' history is a minute fragment of that timeline and we're pretty damn new in the scheme of things. In the earth's timeframe there have been many instances where the climate changed but this was over very long periods of time or more importantly due to some cataclysmic and very, very obvious and explainable influence (think dinosaurs and a big rock - although again, nowhere near our little slice of existence). Our explanation however happens to be an observable increase in a compound that blocks infra-red radiation after losing energy due to passing through the atmosphere and bouncing off the earth's surface (hence allowing heat in but not out) to explain that. It took almost the entirety of humanity's several hundreds of thousands of years of existence to get to roughly one billion people and in the space of just over two centuries we octuple'd it. In that timeframe our discovery and consumption of fossil fuels exploded and at the exact same time temperatures started to increase at a rate unprecedented by any measure we have. This includes thermometers which yes! do go back 150 years (not sure where your temperature records come from) and to be fully truthful actually go back to the 1600's but they were deliberately excluded to prevent bias in older technology. Is that enough math?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on May 28, 2023 1:04:18 GMT
I believe the page you linked, the one that basically debunks the petition. Forget the bits that mention links to fossil fuel companies etc., I'm more than happy for them to have their say as long as the 99.9% of more than 88,000 climate change studies agree that humans have accelerated the phenomenon, largely due to carbon emissions. and Moreover, the last 15 warmest years on record (my insert - after over 150 years of recording) have occurred since 2005, with the most recent eight years being the warmest, according to NASA. gets equal prominence. the earth is 4.5billion years old... and you spout 150yrs of records... you do the maths. ... 99.9% over how many years? again .. the earth is 4.5 billion years old... are you silly enough to believe that a report based over 150yrs (and no its ~50yrs) of study can determine the climatic future of the earth? Those 88,000 climate change studies aren't constrained to just the human record-keeping of the past 50 or 150 years! Science is a little more inventive than that. They also use alternative recording sources spanning millennia, such as ice cores for example, and include other methods as mentioned by iano. Do you deny the 'hole' in the ozone layer too? My layman's understanding is scientists discovered it, recommended the path forward, we listened and acted, and the hole is now slowly recovering as a result. Mankind caused it, mankind discovered and has hopefully rectified it. Good science at work. Parallels there with climate change perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:09:40 GMT
Back in the day, dinosaurs were 50 feet high... why... because oxygen levels were 10 times higher than today..why? because the earth was covered in trees and vegitation... photosythesis...loads of volcanoes churning out carbon dioxide and even more trees and vegitation taking in the carbon dioxide and turning it into oxygen.....then....the earth was hit by a large meteor which wiped out over 90% of animal life and 80% of vegitation...but here we still are, the sooner the scientist idiots make the connection between trees and vegitation and carbon dioxide the sooner we can solve this problem..... deforestation is the disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:13:00 GMT
the earth is 4.5billion years old... and you spout 150yrs of records... you do the maths. ... 99.9% over how many years? again .. the earth is 4.5 billion years old... are you silly enough to believe that a report based over 150yrs (and no its ~50yrs) of study can determine the climatic future of the earth? Those 88,000 climate change studies aren't constrained to just the human record-keeping of the past 50 or 150 years! Science is a little more inventive than that. They also use alternative recording sources spanning millennia, such as ice cores for example, and include other methods as mentioned by iano . Do you deny the 'hole' in the ozone layer too? My layman's understanding is scientists discovered it, recommended the path forward, we listened and acted, and the hole is now slowly recovering as a result. Mankind caused it, mankind discovered and has hopefully rectified it. Good science at work. Parallels there with climate change perhaps? point me their and ill read it.
|
|
