|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8329624)
I would say Burbage, given that the thermal change we are all talking about is the sun anyway, that you have a prima facia case there.
How does the AGW lobby counter this evidence? This thread is hilarious. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8330865)
but isn't it only a theory and until we have definitive proof we should dismiss it?
Okay - I admit it, I'm taking the piss a bit, but that kind of position seems to be a way of excluding information in this debate. The deniers like to have it both ways. note: see my previous definition of the term "denier" |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8329240)
agreed - the debate tends to be "religious" for want of a better term - not much science has been discussed on this forum!
Especially when research quoted in debates tends to be (rightly or wrongly) dismissed by people for who the research doesn't suit. Half the people I have talked to on AGW or Climate Change seem to want to talk about reinforcing their own position rather than actually engaging in a truly (sceptical) and inquisitive discussion. Where are all the people who just want to know more, who are withholding their verdicts until further evidence is uncovered. And I don't mean refusing to believe in something until proof - I mean honestly saying they don't know and they are interested in exploring the subject some more. Okay, rant over. o'tool and others keep saying that we should look at the raw data - but *which* raw data, and how has it been adjusted? *I* don't know, and neither do most of the rest of us. There is no doubt that the deniers' case has been hugely strengthened in recent months, if you judge that by the number of people posting on blogs etc - but, again, 99% of them are ignorant of the science and are only cutting and pasting, often to reinforce their preconceptions. The internet really has become a means of disseminating falsehoods and I think it's only going to get worse. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8331077)
Which as usual brings us back to previous exchanges: I was shot down for making the point that 99% of us cannot make up our minds on the science (it's just too complicated) and must decide based on what we can glean of the credentials of the scientists involved. (Certainly NOT from the likes of Peter Garrett, Tony Abbott and co - who are doing just that, but with votes at the backs of their minds as well.)
o'tool and others keep saying that we should look at the raw data - but *which* raw data, and how has it been adjusted? *I* don't know, and neither do most of the rest of us. There is no doubt that the deniers' case has been hugely strengthened in recent months, if you judge that by the number of people posting on blogs etc - but, again, 99% of them are ignorant of the science and are only cutting and pasting, often to reinforce their preconceptions. The internet really has become a means of disseminating falsehoods and I think it's only going to get worse. Not in Australia - it will all be nicely filtered. The problem that we also have here Wol is that on this earth, more people than not, believe in the existence of a bearded invisible friend who created the earth in 6 days, with no basis of proof or evidence, and in many cases in spite of the evidence. How on earth do you set out even attempting to demonstrate to them that one set of scientists methods are better than another sets? Sadly it all comes down to people like Garret and Abbott, and how well they put the spin on whichever particular set of figures they want to support. People are more ready to believe an articulate spokesman or a figurehead than people who in most people's eyes are nerds working on numbers. Like Goebbels said: "If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, and tell it often. People will eventually believe you" If you tell people something often enough, they will eventually believe it, irrespective of the actual evidence. S |
Re: Global warming
Amen to that!
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8330842)
Burbage is talking about the solar cycle which lead to small changes in solar output over an 11 or so year period. Solar cycles in the late 20th century were characterised by relatively high solar activity which, some argue, may have been the main cause of global temperature increases. However, the amount of energy variation from the sun during these cycles is actually very small and cannot, on its own, explain any significant warming - I think a variation of 0.2 deg C is the most that can be accounted for. There are some other theories which are a bit complicated. One of them involves an increase in gamma radiation from outside our solar system due to a drop in solar wind intensity which could essentially lead to greater cloud seeding and, hence, greater cloud cover and lower global temperatures during periods of low solar activity. The reverse applies during periods of high solar activity. However, these theories are far fetched and would never meet Burbage's rigorous standards for scientific proof.
The problem is that the connection between solar radiation and the earth's climate changes is established, and if we are not to consider it the main cause today we have to come up with a very good reason for it. Essentially I'd like to see solar activity reduce to pre-1950 levels and still observe global temperatures rising (after a suitable lag period while other physical factors respond), before I'm convinced. You may be more easily convinced. It is that lag period which is in fact the problem with most of the research from the deniers that attempts to be sceptical about the effect of solar energy. They expect it to be an immediate effect, but the warming of the ocean, the melting of ice caps etc all take time. Several papers attempting to discount solar activity as the cause of recent warming only look at the period post 1985, which is far too short a period to consider, as the deniers themselves point out when we discuss the cold decade between 1965 and 1975. Please do not hold back from complex analyses if you think they will help. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8330880)
Opinion polls aren't research? :blink: But the opinion poll taken of the scientists was an attempt to discover the consensus that all sides in this debate are insisting is in their favour. If you want to say things like "most scientists agree/disagree that there is a strong likelihood that AGW is occuring" then how do you measure this if you don't ask them?
And the solar activity data fits neatly in your view, but then the debate over global warming fits neatly onto the existing socio-political landscape (in my view) hence the raging political debate on this issue. If you take the solar argument, there are plenty who would argue that one set of events in a complex system is too simplistic to provide an answer, even if it is part of the answer. But let us be sure first. We must wait until a period of lower solar energy output occurs. Then if the global warming continues we know it isn't the sun. That won't prove it is CO2, but it will prove it isn't natural. |
Re: Global warming
>>But let us be sure first. We must wait until a period of lower solar energy output occurs. Then if the global warming continues we know it isn't the sun. That won't prove it is CO2, but it will prove it isn't natural.<<
You want it both ways! In your previous post you correctly say that it's too short a period to make assessments - yet here you appear to be saying exactly the opposite (unless you mean look at it over a couple of centuries?) |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8330922)
Yes, that is exactly my point. The proposition that the earth's warming has been caused by changes in solar activity (i.e. it is NOT due to human greenhouse gas emissions) is idle speculation and is not backed-up by conclusive scientific experiments.
The deniers like to have it both ways. note: see my previous definition of the term "denier" |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8331213)
>>But let us be sure first. We must wait until a period of lower solar energy output occurs. Then if the global warming continues we know it isn't the sun. That won't prove it is CO2, but it will prove it isn't natural.<<
You want it both ways! In your previous post you correctly say that it's too short a period to make assessments - yet here you appear to be saying exactly the opposite (unless you mean look at it over a couple of centuries?) |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8331226)
Fossil fuels will run out within the century anyway, so there will no longer be an issue regarding old carbon being returned to the system.
And than it will be time to tax us on breathing. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8331206)
If you ask all christian whether they believe in God you'll get 98% of them saying they do. Does this mean that god exists?
. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8331571)
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I never said that something existed, I said that the research was to see what the consensus on AGW was. Not to prove whether it existed. The research was in response to the oft-claimed argument that both sides use saying that "science" and the "majority of scientists" were on their side (reminds me of the old "God is on our side" cry). So the fact that most of the climate scientists polled (97%) agreed that AGW is occurring proves, well, it proves that most of the climate scientists polled agree that AGW is occurring.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8331665)
And doesn't prove that AGW is occuring, only that they like it being there because it attracts research funding. Shall we stick to the science rather than opinion polls?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8331668)
Is there any science that refutes AGW?
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:10 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.