Is there any science in climate change?

[Injunear]

You mean "phlogiston"?

Yes, thank you.

I think you will find it went out of favour over 200 years ago...due to scientific consensus!

No, sorry, I think you will find it was disproved through quantification in experiment.

See for example:

Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals gained mass when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Some phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative mass; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on Archimedes' principle, the densities of magnesium and its combustion product showed that just being lighter than air could not account for the increase in mass. Stahl himself did not address the problem of the metals that burn gaining weight, but those who followed his ideas and did not question his ideas were the ones that worked on this problem.

Source: Wikipedia and White, John Henry (1973). The History of Phlogiston Theory. Ney York, N.Y.: AMS Press Inc. ISBN 0404069304.

Consensus is never science - just a lack of disagreement.

[Injunear]

PS Phlogiston was a dominant theory - the scientific consensus if you like - for over a hundred years. It was still wrong.

Even when it was evidentially disproved beyond reasonable doubt, the adherents to the theory continued to try to amend it to address the very obvious flaws. These adherents to the previous consensus could be termed "deniers" I suppose, but this is rather a pejorative term for those who in the end were simply deluded by their beliefs and unable to see clearly the contradictory evidence.

[Stonge]

Scientists are the most easily fooled. They will believe anything with the slightest evidence base and rarely think outside the narrow limits of their specialisms.

Slightly better than religious zealots who'll believe anything with no evidence whatsoever.

[XFool]

If it is so readily falsified, then falsify it: Show me evidence to back your claims. Thats how science works.

Good luck with that!

Yes. That's "how science works", but when it comes to Denialism in climate science, you ain't dealing with "science".

[XFool]

Agreed Xfool. The evidence is overwhelming that we are destabilizing the climate. Burning a large mass of hydrocarbons in a period of a few centuries releases CO2 that had otherwise been safely sequestered over the preceding geological ages.

Yes - and that answer to the "carbon cycle" thingummy is so self evident that one wonders why the OP cannot think of it for themselves. I didn't point it out because, from experience, I know that when it comes to debating with any kind of Denier with evidence, explanation or reason it simply doesn't 'work'. If it did, they wouldn't be a Denier in the first place.

Still it is always fun slapping denialists around the head with science. The psychology of denialism is fascinating, often the argument leads to a point where they are trounced by the weight of evidence but still insistent that we should "drill, baby drill", blame lies elsewhere, anywhere rather than from our own appetites and tailpipes.

Yes. In truth I am really not at all knowledgeable about climate science itself. Or even particularly interested! But when it comes to the psychology of Denialism (in general) I have over time become absolutely fascinated. Probably because I feel I really don't understand it at all - and I like understanding things.

[77ss]

There is a huge amount of science involved.

Please do feel free to identify any......

.....And even more impressed with any science that can explain how the CO2 molecules could ever know which direction is "Up" and which is "Down".

Er - gravity?

[quelquod]

I'm unconvinced by the arguments that man's increase in the level of CO2 is the cause of the (undoubted) global warming. The arguments put forwards are along the lines of 'crows are black so that black bird is likely a crow' and completely ignore the cyclical weather patterns in the past. Whilst substantial compared with temperatures over the last 100 years, the recent rise in temperature is much less than many rises over the last couple of thousand years and before that. We are consumed by the fact that CO2 traps energy without considering that H2O (water vapour) has increased more and traps energy better. We are also blind to the fact that CO2 is emitted in quantity by the oceans as temperature rises.

It is a fact that global temperatures have been cyclical for as far back as we can adequately measure. In medieval times and at the time of the Roman invasion temperatures were very considerably higher than they are today. Before that there are numerous warm and cold cycles. We have no explanation for any of them, but we are content to blindly associate CO2 levels with both our activities and the cause of the current one. In fact we have quite reasonable explanations (a bit like the Venus argument) why temperatures may have risen in the past but none as to why they should have fallen again (Venus hasn't). There is no demonstration of cause and effect, only of association.

Global warming is a bit of a bandwagon. Many people's reputations are staked on it and a gigantic global industry has grown around it with no evidence that we can affect it. This isn't science beyond a proposed and incomplete theory; it's more like hysteria.

[Stonge]

Venus - 96% CO2 in atmosphere.

Earth - 400 parts per million CO2 in atmosphere.

Bit of a difference.

[XFool]

I'm unconvinced by the arguments that man's increase in the level of CO2 is the cause of the (undoubted) global warming. The arguments put forwards are along the lines of 'crows are black so that black bird is likely a crow' and completely ignore the cyclical weather patterns in the past. Whilst substantial compared with temperatures over the last 100 years, the recent rise in temperature is much less than many rises over the last couple of thousand years and before that. We are consumed by the fact that CO2 traps energy without considering that H2O (water vapour) has increased more and traps energy better. We are also blind to the fact that CO2 is emitted in quantity by the oceans as temperature rises.

I really am not interested in debating the basic facts of GW/climate change. So I am not going to! However..

The thing is this: If you think you know the above facts and you consider it means AGW isn't happening. How come all the great many professional scientists engaged in climate research over decades are, apparently so incompetent and ill informed that they all fail to have noticed these vital facts for themselves? Or is it that they really are all involved in some international conspiracy and cover up?

This is what I want to know the answer to.

It all rather reminds me of those people who, with some awareness of the facts of Special Relativity, one day discover Cherenkov radiation (a sort of electromagnetic shock wave effect caused by particles travelling faster through a dielectric media than the speed of light in the same media) and then rush excitedly to announce to the world that they have found 'proof' that Einstein had "got it all wrong".

[Alaric]

Add to that the fact that none of the climate models predicted nor can explain the apparent pause we have seen in warming recently despite CO2 levels in the atmosphere continuing to rise.

Average global temperature is exactly that, an average. There must be a residual doubt as to whether it's being measured correctly. CO2 levels are also an average. That's perhaps not so widely known, but the level of CO2 in particular locations changes with the seasons. So the theory is that there's a linear relationship between an average and an average. What drives the temperature of the Earth is its primary heat source, namely the Sun. Climate modellers claim to have allowed for all the effects of variation in the amount of energy coming from the Sun and the CO2 is the leftover "unexplained".

[wheypat]

Venus - 96% CO2 in atmosphere.

Earth - 400 parts per million CO2 in atmosphere.

Bit of a difference.

Of course there is a bit of a difference. But, do you accept that CO2 on Venus is causing the planet to retain heat? In which case, do you accept that CO2 on Earth is causing the planet to retain heat?

[quelquod]

Venus - 96% CO2 in atmosphere.

Earth - 400 parts per million CO2 in atmosphere.

Bit of a difference.

Of course there is a bit of a difference. But, do you accept that CO2 on Venus is causing the planet to retain heat? In which case, do you accept that CO2 on Earth is causing the planet to retain heat?

There are no atmospheric gases which do not contribute to 'retaining heat'. What is questioned is whether the man-made proportion of CO2 is the driver of increasing temperatures. We don't know enough about Venus to say whether it once had a civilisation which ruined the planet and extinguished itself by setting off an irreversible CO2 increase.

[seekingbalance]

As far as I am concerned, the only real evidence is measurements taken at the same point under the same conditions, and not interpolations and averages of remote points. What was once the middle of a green field may have become a sea of concrete and buildings, and there is no valid historical comparison. I do have the evidence of my own measurements, taken ouitside my back door, which indicate a maximum average annual temperature of 10.9°C in 1990. It fell to a minimum of 7.8°C in 2010 and has since shown a gradual rise. There are intermediate maxima and minima along the way, but the moving average over 4 years shows a maximum of 10.34°C in 1993, then a gradual fall to 9.04°C in 2013 and a slight bounce back to 9.13°C.

My local weatherman agrees with me.

TJH

I assume there have been no murders in your garden over this time period, either? Are we to conclude that murder is a thing of the past?

[seekingbalance]

Ignore all the science, ignore all the argument about who is the main contributor to the problem - the Sun, the sea, animals, man...

The indisputable facts from observations that any of use can make - rising sea levels, reducing glaciers, average temperatures over our recent lifetimes being higher, averaged (even if imperfectly) measures over time... all show that the Earth is getting warmer. Scientists also tell us that CO2 levels are getting higher every year and are higher than they have ever been at the moment.

It is also clear that greenhouse gases of whatever sort do contribute to warming.

None of the above can be in dispute, and I have not mentioned blame at all.

Because blame does not matter.

More than half of Americans did not vote for Trump and thus are not "to blame". But they have him
None of us voted for May. But we have her.
The OP, TJH and all the other deniers on this thread may or may not vote, thinking their puny little vote does not count. but others vote and they are stuck with the consequences.

Global warming is a bit like that - it is demonstrably happening, at the moment, and it may or may not abate on its own.

But whatever the main cause, we can affect it. If we are the main cause, say 80%, and we could halve our projected future emissions then we can have a huge impact on the effects.

If we are a minor cause, say 20%, and we still halve our emissions then we still have an effect albeit smaller. It isn't unlikely we are having no effect at all.

If we do nothing we will reap 100% of the effect- and that effect affects US. The Earth cannot and does not give a crap. We, or global warming, are not killing the Earth. We/it is killing the environment we have evolved to be comfortable living in.

Huge proportions of our populations live near the coast or on a major river, all of which are at "sea level" - if levels rise, literally billions of people may have to up and move, to higher ground, and the next coastline. Trillions of seaside real estate gone, lots less land to move to.

Our crops have been artificially modified over centuries of husbandry to work best at certain temperatures and moisture levels. Many of them may not work so well at higher temperatures, certainly not in the places they are currently grown.

All of this is solvable, and if we actually wanted to we may even be able to do something to affect even non man made warming.

But it is manifestly happening at the moment. If we spend all our time arguing about whether it is our fault or not, rather than figuring out how to make things better, then we may end up being too late to avoid major disruption down the line. And it is not a nil sum game - we are going to run out of oil in the end anyway, so moving to replace it as a fuel source may help us stretch out its useful life for centuries, so we can enjoy all the plastics and other types of byproduct for much longer than the time we would otherwise have got by burning it. If that's helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions along the way, how is that a bad thing?

If an enormous earth killer asteroid was spotted bearing down on Earth do you propose we do nothing to try to prevent it hitting us, because we did not cause it to arrive?

Thought not.

[quelquod]

@seekingbalance
if we are the main cause, say 80%, and we could halve our projected future emissions then we can have a huge impact on the effects.

If we are a minor cause, say 20%, and we still halve our emissions then we still have an effect albeit smaller. It isn't unlikely we are having no effect at all.

And if we are a negligible cause, and the rising temperature cycles as it always has done before over millennia, and meantime we have destroyed a few industries, ruined the economies of a few countries, endured unnecessary privations and costs, taken half-cocked measures in our unneeded haste and whatever else?

Confusing motion with action is a common result of a lack of understanding.

[XFool]

I assume there have been no murders in your garden over this time period, either? Are we to conclude that murder is a thing of the past?

LOL!

[XFool]

And if we are a negligible cause, and the rising temperature cycles as it always has done before over millennia, and meantime we have destroyed a few industries, ruined the economies of a few countries, endured unnecessary privations and costs, taken half-cocked measures in our unneeded haste and whatever else?

So which side of the bet are you willing to take? Remember, the payoff may accrue to your children's children, or their children...

[quelquod]

So which side of the bet are you willing to take? Remember, the payoff may accrue to your children's children, or their children...

And finally we have come to the least scientific input of all. A bit like worshiping God only because the alternative might be bad in the future?

You think perhaps that we should fall into line with every crackpot theory dreamed up by self-agrandisers simply on the basis that the alternative might somehow be unpleasant and irreversible at some unforeseeable future date. My answer in this case is that I believe we have shown association not cause, and I'm content to proceed on that basis.

[Injunear]

That's perhaps not so widely known, but the level of CO2 in particular locations changes with the seasons.

Why anyone should be surprised by this escapes me. The natural carbon cycle of emission and sequestration of CO2 is controlled by, mostly, plant growth and death according to seasonal temperature variations. Now let's think for a moment - what is is that controls seasonal temperature variations of 10s of degrees - oh, yes, it's that big burning thing in the sky. When plants are growing in the northern hemisphere they are dying in the southern and vice versa. Of course there are variations in CO2 levels according to the seasons.

The sun causes huge seasonal and daily variations in temperature, but of course, as the "scientific consensus" knows, these very large and cyclical variations have nothing to do with climate, they are "noise", whereas the supposed 0.5deg C increase in "global temperature" over a 100 years is the really important "signal". The sun has no effect on warming or cooling or weather or CO2 levels ore anything at all, no sirree, that's all down to our motor cars. Of course it is.

[Injunear]

I have some time so happy to debate, though it appears that you have made your mind up.

I am confused as to the nature of your denial. 1. Do you deny altered climate?

or

2. Do you agree the climate is changing but point to causes other than human pollution as the prime cause?

What is the nature of your denial?
1. Do you deny that massive changes in climatic conditions on the planet have occurred long before human industrialisation for which the AGW hypothesis offers not the slightest possible explanation?

I don't think I am denying anything. I am positively asserting that weather, climate (which is the aggregate of weather not vice versa) and temperatures on our planet are influenced most significantly by the fact that this planet is in the atmosphere of our local star.

2. Are you denying that the sun causes daily and seasonal temperature variations that are orders of magnitude greater than that identified as due to AGW?

By the way when you use the term "human pollution" do you include breathing?