Am I still allowed to question climate change?

The fact that it has constantly changed in the past (not just changed, it's never been stable) is sufficient. I don't need to explain the mechanism, the evidence is that such mechanisms exist.

 

But the person you're debating with clearly stated-

 

 

A natural change in atmospheric CO2 of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years but the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 150 years which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels.

 

a rate of change which, presumably has not occured in the past. I say presumably, feel free to put forward arguments that it may have, but, in the absence of such arguments, you're going to have to address angos's point that this kind of change has not happened in the past.

 

 

 

You understand it so well, why don't you create a model and predict the climate for the next decade.

If you're model is accurate, then I'll accept everything you've been saying.

If on the other hand you struggle to predict the temperature next week and the average temperature next month, then I'll keep my current opinion.

Weather and climate over such a short period is impossible to predict even in principle- it's a chaotic system i.e. determined but effectively random.

Thats got to be the single daftest reason I have ever seen as an argument against AGW.

I wasn't arguing against AGW though, I was countering your clearly ridiculous chain of logic which went.

 

Human activity could potentially cause climate change

The climate is changing

Therefore it must be humans that caused it.

 

Without human activity the climate would still have changed, but it would have been cooling and not warming.

No evidence to support that AFAIK.

Yes the climate is cyclical because the suns activity is cyclical and the earth orbit round the sun is cyclical.

Far too simplistic, ignores a myriad of factors that we barely understand.

 

Solar activity as seen a steady decline in sunspot activity over the last two solar cycles which coincides with a slowing down of AGW, the earth as warmed faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years because of the green houses gasses pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.

Speculation, lacks any real supporting evidence.

 

The normal cycles of the earth will continue regardless of human activity, but human activity does add another dimension to them which can alter the climate by speeding a warming cycle up or slowing a cooling cycle down.

Possibly, but there is no scientific proof of that. Until we have a model which actually makes accurate predictions all we can say is that actually we just don't understand it yet.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2013 at 10:49 ----------

 

But the person you're debating with clearly stated-

 

 

 

a rate of change which, presumably has not occured in the past. I say presumably, feel free to put forward arguments that it may have, but, in the absence of such arguments, you're going to have to address angos's point that this kind of change has not happened in the past.

The rate of change being currently zero?? Or are we going to ignore the inconvenient lack of change for the past 15 years?

 

 

 

Weather and climate over such a short period is impossible to predict even in principle- it's a chaotic system i.e. determined but effectively random.

Indeed. And what makes you think that predicting it over a longer time period is any easier?

If we can't predict it, even in generalities, then how can we claim to understand any effect that we have introduced?

Far too simplistic, ignores a myriad of factors that we barely understand.

 

The parts that we do understand point towards AGW, your points are too implistic.

 

The rate of change being currently zero?? Or are we going to ignore the inconvenient lack of change for the past 15 years?

 

Not sure if you're trolling here? You previously stated that changes like we're witnessing now have happened in the past. I mentioned angos's "change in atmospheric CO2 of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years but the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 150 years which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels." (which has not happened in the past)

 

So I'm not sure why you're bring up a "lack of change for the past 15 years"?

 

You've certainly not addressed the point I was raising (and which angos also raised).

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we can't predict it, even in generalities, then how can we claim to understand any effect that we have introduced?

 

It's possible to understand a system, and be unable to predict it- like I said, chaotic systems are, even in principle, impossible to predict accurately. The example often given in connection with chaotic systems is that of the famous 'mandlebrot set'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

 

which, despite being produced by a very simple formula and deterministic process, the status of any given point in that set cannot, even in principle, be predicted, without going through the process and actually producing that point.

I try not to make implistic points.

 

So far as I can see, the only science that points strongly towards AGW was doctored in order to make that prediction. Data that needs 'fudge factors' applying, deliberately excluding inconvenient data, ignoring heat island affects to allow the data to be misrepresented, obfuscating data and refusing to release it (the normal scientific process).

 

I'm not saying that AGW definitely isn't happening. But the case appears to be far less than clear cut and whilst there are grounds for much more research, there are not IMO grounds for taking expensive action.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2013 at 11:11 ----------

 

Not sure if you're trolling here? You previously stated that changes like we're witnessing now have happened in the past. I mentioned angos's "change in atmospheric CO2 of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years but the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 150 years which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels." (which has not happened in the past)

 

So I'm not sure why you're bring up a "lack of change for the past 15 years"?

Sorry, thought you were referring to actual warming.

The rate of change of CO2 isn't in dispute. It doesn't prove anything though.

 

You've certainly not addressed the point I was raising (and which angos also raised).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's possible to understand a system, and be unable to predict it- like I said, chaotic systems are, even in principle, impossible to predict accurately. The example often given in connection with chaotic systems is that of the famous 'mandlebrot set'

Yes it is, are you claiming that we understand the climate system. It's blatantly obvious that we do not. We are constantly discovering new feedback processes which damp changes, in fact the rate at which we are discovering them appears to be increasing.

I wasn't arguing against AGW though, I was countering your clearly ridiculous chain of logic which went.

 

Human activity could potentially cause climate change

The climate is changing

Therefore it must be humans that caused it.

So you have put forth an argument to counter something I have said.

 

 

No evidence to support that AFAIK.

Yes there is unless you think solar activity as no affect on the earths climate.

 

Far too simplistic,

Of cause its simplistic, its a discussion forum and I'm not about to type out all the evidence that already exists.

 

 

Speculation, lacks any real supporting evidence.

No it isn't, its supported by evidence.

 

 

Possibly, but there is no scientific proof of that. Until we have a model which actually makes accurate predictions all we can say is that actually we just don't understand it yet.

Yes there is, you can say what you like, just because you don't understand something doesn't alter the fact that some people do.

 

 

The rate of change being currently zero?? Or are we going to ignore the inconvenient lack of change for the past 15 years?

Already told you why but you keep ignoring the inconvenient facts.

Sorry, thought you were referring to actual warming.

The rate of change of CO2 isn't in dispute. It doesn't prove anything though.

Yes it is, are you claiming that we understand the climate system. It's blatantly obvious that we do not. We are constantly discovering new feedback processes which damp changes, in fact the rate at which we are discovering them appears to be increasing.

 

fair point

 

So, just to be clear- you accept that CO2 has risen dramatically, but you don't think there's real evidence that it's causing a temperature rise?

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2013 at 12:02 ----------

 

Already told you why but you keep ignoring the inconvenient facts.

 

I think he's with you on the rise in CO2 levels- when he's saying there's no change currently, I think he's refering to global temperature, not co2

 

I think he's with you on the rise in CO2 levels- when he's saying there's no change currently, I think he's refering to global temperature, not co2

 

There may be little change over the past 15 years, but there has been an upward trend for around 100 years.

Oh dear,

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fNKqWw00

Oh dear,

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fNKqWw00

 

THis is a perfect example of addiction to the tabloids, where the ignorant assume such a tabloid will tell the truth as it is, and not select bits out of context to make their own point.

 

With my archaeloogical hat on the world climate is noramlly continuously in an ice age, and we at the moment are in an unusual time warp of an interglacial. Sheffield a few thousand years ago was under 2 miles of ice, but the tabloids do not put things in perspective. The North Sea did not exist as the UK was connected to Europe, one could walk there. We cannot do anything anyway, and why should we???

 

So I look forward to the wars just starting over water, watching millions starve to death as the climate which always is cylical puts the 7+ billion human under stress. Who cares about million dieing anyway, maleria kills a few, road accidents kills a lot, diseases reap a yearly crop of misery and death. What is a few million more?? Food prices get to a hight for the poor to be able to eat, shut the food banks down let them starve, natural selection??? So that gets rid of that problem, so roll on global warming, and watch how the frightened humans scurry like headless chickens watching their global family being decimated. THe UK will be forced to accept immigration of million, and not just the 2 million Poles, as sea level rising forces people into smaller more hostile environments.

 

Just look at world history tabloid suckers, then investigate your genetic history, and find out humans were nearly wiped out in the past, all due to climate change. THe few left created what exists now, as we are all more genetically closeer than two chimpanzees in the same group. Anyone told you were are an incestious species, check out the genetics tabloid students.

 

As for climate change it's going on and your children will be the suckers to try and sort this mess out, So just kleep up the banter and go out on the P*ss, its what tabloid addiction leads to. THe opinionated ignorami polish up their pathetic egos, over subjects they are not interestd providing opinions that will like this be forgotten in a few minutes.