Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Even the 'scientific consensus' admits it cannot prove the link! Why can you not understand the difference between carbon emissions and the absorption of carbon into the atmosphere?

The wikipedia article cites these observations:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Scientif...climate_change

Scientific consensus

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3] It is "extremely likely"[4] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases"[4] in the atmosphere.[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[6][7][8][9]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[10] The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014.[11] Its conclusions are summarized below:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia."[12]
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."[13]
Human influence on the climate system is clear.[14] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[15] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[14]
"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts."[16]
"A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability."[17]
"The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[16]
Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[18]
The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2°C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[19] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66–100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[20]
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[21][22]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[23] which in 2007[24] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[25] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

This seems to conclude that greenhouse gas emissions do indeed correlate with atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The wikipedia article cites these observations:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Scientif...climate_change



This seems to conclude that greenhouse gas emissions do indeed correlate with atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

I know. But what I said was that there is no proven link. The article you provided says just that. It is an opinion and opinions should be challenged if there are factors that point in the other direction.

Blaming what is happening to climate on carbon emissions is an easy pointer to causation. However, it doesn't really add up, does it?

Further investigation is required and the sensible arguments against explored instead of being ridiculed because the scientists might get embarrassed if they had to climb down now.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know. But what I said was that there is no proven link. The article you provided says just that. It is an opinion and opi ions should be challenged if there are factors that point in the other direction.

Blaming what is happening to climate on carbon emissions is an easy pointer to causation. However, it doesn't really add up, does it?

Further investigation is required and the sensible arguments against explored instead of being ridiculed because the scientists might get embarrassed if they had to climb down now.

You appear to be confusing opinion and (scientific) theory - one is someone's thoughts on a matter, and the other is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Yes, scientific theory can (and often are) modified by new findings or challenges, but equating "opinions" with scientific theory is like saying you don't believe in gravity, as it's only an opinion...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You appear to be confusing opinion and (scientific) theory - one is someone's thoughts on a matter, and the other is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Yes, scientific theory can (and often are) modified by new findings or challenges, but equating "opinions" with scientific theory is like saying you don't believe in gravity, as it's only an opinion...

Except that I have given reasons for my scepticism, and the issue of the link between carbon emissions and the very small amount of these absorbed into the atmosphere has not been answered. That's because you can't so you are ignoring the actual question.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that I have given reasons for my scepticism, and the issue of the link between carbon emissions and the very small amount of these absorbed into the atmosphere has not been answered. That's because you can't so you are ignoring the actual question.

Not ignoring it - someone else has answered it, you don't like the answer, so pointless discussing it further; you are equating your opinion against that of thousands of climate scientists and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

[papa smurf]

Well in the face of all this devastating science i suppose you'll all stop flying around the globe for pleasure,stay local and cycle everywhere.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not ignoring it - someone else has answered it, you don't like the answer, so pointless discussing it further; you are equating your opinion against that of thousands of climate scientists and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

What? The question of carbon emissions v absorption has not been answered, actually. I agree he replied but he did not answer the question I put. That's because he cannot, and neither can the scientists.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Well in the face of all this devastating science i suppose you'll all stop flying around the globe for pleasure,stay local and cycle everywhere.

Ah, the old "If you don’t give up everything, there’s no point in doing anything" argument...

Strange, no one uses this argument for trying to prevent drunk driving, murders, rape, and other crime - "well, I assume since the police can’t catch all the criminals, it’s pointless trying to catch any, so may as well not bother".

It’s incremental - if we recognise there’s a problem, we take steps to solve the problem, using varying initiatives and solutions; that doesn’t mean "all or nothing".

I eat processed meat, albeit maybe not as much, even though it's linked to a higher risk of cancer. Doesn't mean I am about to run off and starting smoking 20 packs a day whilst sunbathing in the fields of chernobyl....

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What? The question of carbon emissions v absorption has not been answered, actually. I agree he replied but he did not answer the question I put. That's because he cannot, and neither can the scientists.

Because most of the CO2 is (mostly) absorbed by the oceans...

You may find this NASA paper informative.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Ah, the old "If you don’t give up everything, there’s no point in doing anything" argument...

Strange, no one uses this argument for trying to prevent drunk driving, murders, rape, and other crime - "well, I assume since the police can’t catch all the criminals, it’s pointless trying to catch any, so may as well not bother".

It’s incremental - if we recognise there’s a problem, we take steps to solve the problem, using varying initiatives and solutions; that doesn’t mean "all or nothing".

Ah the old I've booked my fights for my holidays so sod it approach .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Ah the old I've booked my fights for my holidays so sod it approach .

No...

The old 'it's better to try something (get a more fuel efficient/less polluting car, use reusable shopping bags, recycle as much as possible, don't use re-usable cups/bottles of water, etc. etc.) approach, because that way more people are likely to join in rather than just putting a hairshirt on and being holier than thou...

I've said before, you do do a lot of projection*...

*projection - a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No...

The old 'it's better to try something (get a more fuel efficient/less polluting car, use reusable shopping bags, recycle as much as possible, don't use re-usable cups/bottles of water, etc. etc.) approach, because that way more people are likely to join in rather than just putting a hairshirt on and being holier than thou...

I've said before, you do do a lot of projection*...

*projection - a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

how many shopping bags equates to 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel?

I have a less polluting car it.s only 3.5 ltrs i could have gone for the 6.6 ltr engine .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

how many shopping bags equates to 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel?

I have a less polluting car it.s only 3.5 ltrs i could have gone for the 6.6 ltr engine .

I would expect no less from you...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because most of the CO2 is (mostly) absorbed by the oceans...

You may find this NASA paper informative.

Now, that is a really good, informative article which does answer my question. Thanks very much for that, Hugh.