Dunc I remember when those were made I also remember the announcement at the time that the scientific community stated that they had been caught completely on the hop by it.
I haven't googled anything, this is just memory.
Global Warming....Man-made or Natural Occurence
- Thread starter directdrive
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Dunc I remember when those were made I also remember the announcement at the time that the scientific community stated that they had been caught completely on the hop by it.
I haven't googled anything, this is just memory.
And I only Googled to back up my increasingly failing memory 
it's not my field and never has been and what I read comes mostly from generalised reporting from New Scientist or Nature.
What annoys me is people making absolute statements, failing to remember that not so long ago the stalwarts of science said heavier-than-air was impossible, that the Earth was only a few millions of years old, etc, etc, etc...
it's not my field and never has been and what I read comes mostly from generalised reporting from New Scientist or Nature.What annoys me is people making absolute statements, failing to remember that not so long ago the stalwarts of science said heavier-than-air was impossible, that the Earth was only a few millions of years old, etc, etc, etc...
Ah, so you're both going for the "science has been wrong before" gambit... Very good. Now step away from the computer - after all, science has been wrong before, so the idea that your computer might explode at any minute or is giving you brain cancer could turn out to be true, despite being completely contrary to all current science. Maybe we'll discover that rain falls upwards tomorrow, or that lead is really good for you.
There are varying degrees of wrongness. While it is entirely possible that we will make further discoveries which will further refine our understanding of climate, it is extremely unlikely that we'll discover something that will show that all of our previous ideas were not merely incomplete, but actually diameterically opposed to the truth.
For example, relativity proved that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" - but in most cases, the difference between the "wrong" Newtonian answer and the "right" relativistic answer is so small as to be undetectable.
There are varying degrees of wrongness. While it is entirely possible that we will make further discoveries which will further refine our understanding of climate, it is extremely unlikely that we'll discover something that will show that all of our previous ideas were not merely incomplete, but actually diameterically opposed to the truth.
For example, relativity proved that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" - but in most cases, the difference between the "wrong" Newtonian answer and the "right" relativistic answer is so small as to be undetectable.
Exactly 
No, seriously as an outsider to the argument itself, it doesn't look like there is much of a consensus except among those already converted to the mainstream position and while there are other view-points we should at least be prepared to examine them all as the consequences of not doing so are to my mind too great.
No, seriously as an outsider to the argument itself, it doesn't look like there is much of a consensus except among those already converted to the mainstream position and while there are other view-points we should at least be prepared to examine them all as the consequences of not doing so are to my mind too great.
Some of you may find this interesting, Dunc will probably flame me :AR15firin
But the lack of Sun activity recently has some solar scientists worried.
The Sun is Dead!
But the lack of Sun activity recently has some solar scientists worried.
The Sun is Dead!
I want that XKCD on a T-Shirt.
andy_e said:
Except that those other viewpoints have been thoroughly examined, and found to be based on total bull****. And of course the consensus is only held by those "already converted to the mainstream position" - the mainstream position is, by definition, the consensus. All you've said there is "only people who already agree with the consensus agree with the consensus". Holy tautology Batman! If that's your idea of logical argumentation, then you're clearly in no position to judge the value of anybody else's arguments.
OK, lets try a practical example. Suppose I were to assert that the best way to sterilise water for drinking is to defecate in it and then raise it's temperature to 37 deg C for 24 hours. I even go so far as to write several self-published books expounding my theory, and manage to get a sympathetic write up in Nexus magazine. Suppose further that I completely refuse to acknowledge any of the refutations of this idea, and just keep making up more and more bizarre rationalisations for it, and I even manage to convince a number of other people (none of whom actually work in water treatment or microbiology) of my position. Does that mean that there now is a genuine controversy about water sterilisation, and that we need to hold off on any water treatment programmes until this controversy is resolved? Would you insist that my obviously ridiculous views be treated seriously until I acknowledge that they're wrong (which I am never going to do)? Of course not.
I would suggest that "as an outsider to the argument" you may not be qualified to judge what constitutes a legitimate scientific controversy. Do you have any strong feelings about other scientific subjects you don't understand? Perhaps you'd like to share your views on the (genuine) debate around M-theory?
Perhaps the problem is not then theory but the inability to convince those who can influence behavioural change that the theory is valid?
So many scinetists, so utterly convinced and yet they cannot, for example, convince the government to introduce a tax on aviation fuel. Why does anyone think that is?
Red
So many scinetists, so utterly convinced and yet they cannot, for example, convince the government to introduce a tax on aviation fuel. Why does anyone think that is?
Red
Yes, the current solar minimum does seem to be lasting a little longer than expected. However, there is no good evidence of a correlation between solar activity and climate - and even if there were, that would not disprove the well-known and understood role of CO2. The climate is a complex system with many factors interacting.
And you might also like to read this: 'Maverick' sunspot heralds new solar cycle.
I have not got a strong opinion one way or the other on the subject, except to point out that to claim that there is but one truth to which we MUST subscribe is not good for anyone. You have your position and are very clear about what you believe. You may well be right and I thank you for sharing what you know about the subject with those of us who are less well informed. However, I at no point said you were wrong, only that for better or worse there are other opinions out there and they seem to be as strongly held as yours.
As for M-theory, it's all pants, everyone knows that statistical analysis has proven without a shadow of a doubt that it's turtles all the way down.
I'm not sure if I fully agree that it is all our fault. We certainly don't help but there are so many factors involved pinning it one one thing isn't too bright.
If the polar caps were to melt it would undoubtably create climatic chaos. But what type is hard to predict, the Earth would change shape, maybe rotate slightly differently even. Winds and currents would change causing weather systems to as well. I also thought Ice takes up more space than water.
If the polar caps were to melt it would undoubtably create climatic chaos. But what type is hard to predict, the Earth would change shape, maybe rotate slightly differently even. Winds and currents would change causing weather systems to as well. I also thought Ice takes up more space than water.
Just as a smaller example i was waiting to have an tooth abscess treated (again) today and read in a N T magazine (is that safe/reliable??) about the peat in derbyshire. It has been drying out and "oxidising??" (sorry greg please dont have a go because I dont know what that really mean's) and releasing massive amounts of co2, equivalent to what a small town produce a year 500,000 ton's??. But the natural process was exarsebated by over grazing, leaching away of thousands of tons of peat in storms, loss of variouse plants etc. The people there were attempting to reverse this by eg creating small water retaining dams, planting special grasses and things eventually to end up carbon neutral, as peat bogs can store co2??
So maybe if people start to get in touch with elemental forces etc and work with there environment (good stewardship or husbandry as it was once called) maybe there is some hope for repair Or is even that concept overly optimistic utopianism?
So maybe if people start to get in touch with elemental forces etc and work with there environment (good stewardship or husbandry as it was once called) maybe there is some hope for repair Or is even that concept overly optimistic utopianism?
Gregorach, I think that the big issue here is scientific illiteracy. When people don't understand something their response simply reflects their personality. The cynics believe people telling them to reduce their impact are out to get them. People that identify with the planet are more open to the idea. Others don't want to reduce their consumption and standard of living, so are in denial. You see the same thing with politics, but people's ignorance of science is much greater.
Ultimately, we don't know when something is beyond our understanding, except when we later look back and say "I was full of it."
Ultimately, we don't know when something is beyond our understanding, except when we later look back and say "I was full of it."
Climate does fluctuate naturally, but do we WANT it to happen?
Will it be any comfort to the people of Bangladesh, when rising sea levels and increasingly energetic storms drowned large numbers of them, that it might have happened in 200,000 years, anyway?
Will it be any comfort to the people of Bangladesh, when rising sea levels and increasingly energetic storms drowned large numbers of them, that it might have happened in 200,000 years, anyway?
Yes, the oxidation of peat (and other soil carbons) is an important factor - but it's still mostly anthropogenic as it almost always results from land-use changes caused by humans. These sorts of things are among the really big unknowns in terms of their long-term effects - as was mentioned up-thread, if you get enough warming then the entire Siberian tundra could defrost triggering the release of CO2 and methane on a vast scale.
(However, I should note that although the magnitude of this long-term effect is unknown, its sign is known, and it's a positive feedback - that is to say, it makes climate change worse.)
There are many things we can do with land use to make the problem worse. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be as many things we can do to make it better - natural carbon sinks just aren't up to absorbing carbon at the rate we're producing it. There are some ideas about things like iron fertilization of the oceans to increase carbon take-up by plankton, but they're all currently unproven and may have other serious side-effects. I'm not sure how I feel about running massive uncontrolled experiments with the Earth's oceans...
philaw said:
Indeed. The analogy I like to use is to imagine that you're in a small boat on rough water. The more the boat is pitching around anyway, the more important it is not to jump around too much.
I completely agree with you there, wasn't there also some seemingly crazy idea to introduce large amounts of SO2 or sulphates into the upper atmosphere to act as a global coolant?
Chopping down all the rain forest doesn't seem like such a great idea either, though I seem to remember from my university Biology that the oceans are a better carbon sink.
