Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Report Climate change ipcc


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 806
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Am a bit of a loss with this debate. Firstly, because I don't get the name-calling and mudslinging, how does that help? But secondly and more importantly, I just can't understand how much more ev

The IPBES Global Assessment on biodiversity was released yesterday at https://www.ipbes.net/ and makes grim reading. It lists climate change as an increasing factor in the state of life on our planet.

It's amazing really how you continue to miss the point, I don't think anyone is saying climate change isn't caused by humans in some way, but it's not the sole cause, there are other factor at play, s

Posted Images

23 hours ago, knocker said:

Ah another old chestnut.

If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate.  Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

These throwaway lines from deniers continue to be spouted as a diversionary tactic and just as swiftly kicked into touch. They do so simply out of desperation at their inability to produce credible scientific evidence to contradict the overwhelming consensus.

Which part of my comment is "another old chestnut" ?

You will see from my what I wrote, CO2 isn't a singular driver, that's factual, in fact, I would declare 409ppm isn't even close to warranting a single shred of emotion. Wake me up when it's around 4,000ppm. (Even when it was 4000ppm millions of years ago, GLACIERS were forming ?)

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, knocker said:

Yes that is essentially the point

Until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions. Could CO2 levels have fallen this far? Given the low temporal resolution of the CO2 record, the data was not conclusive.

Research examining strontium isotopes in the sediment record shed more light on this question (Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation.

 

It's always best to give credit to the author of the text above, which you can find here with more information, otherwise folks may think you wrote that, which in fact was Mr Cook in 2009.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=82

and here

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

For folks who wish to read more on this theory

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

It's always best to give credit to the author of the text above, which you can find here with more information, otherwise folks may think you wrote that, which in fact was Mr Cook in 2009.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=82

and here

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

For folks who wish to read more on this theory

Do you know what a theory means in science? As apposed to theories one might come up with after a few drinks with the lads?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

There was once a theory that Peptic Ulcers were caused by spicy foods.

Yes  what a revelation that was  Now im now free to eat Chicken vindaloo whenever i like.   The Static Universe Theory was my particular favourite.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that some here don't quite know the difference between scientific theory, and the colloquial usage of theory.

From Wikipedia

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

--------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
So, just because someone calls an idea they have a theory, doesn't mean it meets the standard of scientific theory. For example:
Gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, germs causing disease - all scientific theories.
Electric universe, flat earth, creationism, spicy food causing ulcers - theories in a colloquial sense, but not scientific theories

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It would appear that some here don't quite know the difference between scientific theory, and the colloquial usage of theory.

From Wikipedia

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

--------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
So, just because someone calls an idea they have a theory, doesn't mean it meets the standard of scientific theory. For example:
Gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, germs causing disease - all scientific theories.
Electric universe, flat earth, creationism, spicy food causing ulcers - theories in a colloquial sense, but not scientific theories

Thanks for this. Hopefully the individual(s) who didn't realise the difference is now a little bit more wiser. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

Thanks for this. Hopefully the individual(s) who didn't realise the difference is now a little bit more wiser. 

Quality.   Im glad in a way that the only theroy  Scientific or otherwise  discussion i shall have with my mates tonight  is why bread always falls butter side down.   otherwise i expect bloodied noses would be the order of the day 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

Thanks for this. Hopefully the individual(s) who didn't realise the difference is now a little bit more wiser. 

I'm glad to know that next time someone says something along the lines of "global warming is just a theory" we'll have folk like you ready to correct them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Wasn't that merely received wisdom, handed down from the time of Galen?

It was  the consensus at the time before new scientific knowledge superseded it, and that’s kind of my point what is today’s consensus is tomorrow’s old hat. That’s not that I’m implying the theory on CO2 is wrong but merely the modelled projections most likely are.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It would appear that some here don't quite know the difference between scientific theory, and the colloquial usage of theory.

From Wikipedia

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

--------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
So, just because someone calls an idea they have a theory, doesn't mean it meets the standard of scientific theory. For example:
Gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, germs causing disease - all scientific theories.
Electric universe, flat earth, creationism, spicy food causing ulcers - theories in a colloquial sense, but not scientific theories

Computer modelling isn’t a theory but merely an estimation.?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hocus Pocus said:

Computer modelling isn’t a theory but merely an estimation.?

We'd have to shut down most of our modern if we decide computer simulations aren't useful!

Luckily, climate models are just one part of climate science, so the discipline will prevail regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hocus Pocus said:

It was  the consensus at the time before new scientific knowledge superseded it, and that’s kind of my point what is today’s consensus is tomorrow’s old hat. That’s not that I’m implying the theory on CO2 is wrong but merely the modelled projections most likely are.

Along the lines of Newtonian Mechanics, General Relativity, Quantum Theory and Darwinian Evolution?

If by 'wrong' you mean subject to error then, aye, I will agree. But there's a fundamental difference between error and downright wrongness...

Is teleconnection theory fundamentally wrong just because last-year's front-loaded winter didn't go according to plan? Ought we ditch it now and go back to necromancy?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

We'd have to shut down most of our modern if we decide computer simulations aren't useful!

Luckily, climate models are just one part of climate science, so the discipline will prevail regardless.

There’s a difference between useful and dependence.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

There’s a difference between useful and dependence.

True.

One has dependence on or is useful for...something. How one is supposed to extrapolate from that to the conclusion that AGW theory is of little or no use is, quite frankly, beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

True.

One has dependence on or is useful for...something. How one is supposed to extrapolate from that to the conclusion that AGW theory is of little or no use is, quite frankly, beyond me.

Quite simply put one can be to dependent on a simulated outcome particularly when climate modelling is warming the atmosphere some 67% more when compared to the other observational datasets. 

67B00795-F067-414D-B8D3-2B04B4609459.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

No problem. I'll be here waiting in 50 years time..... When the Planet is just fine ?

I hope you are right, everything other than hope indicates you have misplaced confidence.

What effect do you think changing atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 280pp to 400ppm (and its likely to keep rising) will have? Just to be sure, do you agree with my figures for atmospheric CO2 concentration? And why do you wink at us a lot?

Oh, and do you post on TWO?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Do you know what a theory means in science? As apposed to theories one might come up with after a few drinks with the lads?

i love these theories in fact if a few drinks with the lads were running the country or sat in the white house it would be a beautiful thing :drunk-emoji:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hocus Pocus said:

Quite simply put one can be to dependent on a simulated outcome particularly when climate modelling is warming the atmosphere some 67% more when compared to the other observational datasets. 

67B00795-F067-414D-B8D3-2B04B4609459.jpeg

Apply your sceptical mind to that graph - imagine it was posted by someone that believed AGW was serious. How might you critique it? What questions might you ask?
Go on, give it a try!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...