Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Robin-H]

It depends what you mean by data, during the 'pause', sea levels continued to rise. The graph is not constant as some would think it should be.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

I thought the 'pause' had pretty much been debunked anyway..

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-climate-change-pause-noaa-data-skeptic-denial-real-sea-temperature-a7510691.html

[Cyclone]

The pause data came from Nasa and all the usual places. So if they've now "debunked" their own data, why is it more likely that they're suddenly correct now?

[sgtkate]

The pause data came from Nasa and all the usual places. So if they've now "debunked" their own data, why is it more likely that they're suddenly correct now?

 

And unfortunately the 'political' climate change deniers (i.e. the ones who have a vested interest in us continuing to use fossil fuels and so on) use the certainty of the original predictions as proof that it's all a sham when they aren't 100% correct. If you are going to make a statement as if they were facts then expect to get called out on it.

 

Sadly, science is so often poor at admitting fallibility and come out with over-confident predictions that then get everyone questioning everything rather than seeing the longer trends that still do confirm the upward trend of temperatures and correlation with rising CO2 levels.

 

It's xkcd but this hits the nail on the head: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Can any people who do not agree with the basic hypothesis that human activity are the main trigger for the rapid increase in average temperature of the earth since the industrial revolution explain what is causing it?

[unbeliever]

And unfortunately the 'political' climate change deniers (i.e. the ones who have a vested interest in us continuing to use fossil fuels and so on) use the certainty of the original predictions as proof that it's all a sham when they aren't 100% correct. If you are going to make a statement as if they were facts then expect to get called out on it.

 

Sadly, science is so often poor at admitting fallibility and come out with over-confident predictions that then get everyone questioning everything rather than seeing the longer trends that still do confirm the upward trend of temperatures and correlation with rising CO2 levels.

 

It's xkcd but this hits the nail on the head: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Can any people who do not agree with the basic hypothesis that human activity are the main trigger for the rapid increase in average temperature of the earth since the industrial revolution explain what is causing it?

 

This is not a problem with science in general but with usually with soft/social sciences. Economics and the like. There's not reason it should apply to climatology, but for some reason it does.

[unbeliever]

This web page might be a good place to start if you'd like to improve your understanding.

 

Or this page from the same site takes a broader view.

 

Realclimate is hardly neutral or objective. I wouldn't use that is my only guide any more than i'd use wattsupwiththat.

[El Cid]

Realclimate is hardly neutral or objective. I wouldn't use that is my only guide any more than i'd use wattsupwiththat.

 

Some people dont know difference, and some just dont care.

[unbeliever]

It might not be neutral, like you're not "neutral" when dealing with particle physics/cosmology cranks, but it is objective, and authoritative. You don't need to use it as your only guide, but you're making a mistake if you're not using it as a guide.

 

Those guys are not random amateurs, they're professional scientists who've published in places like Science and Nature, not to mention JGR, GRL etc. etc. Unless you're basing your criticisms on some kind of conspiracy theory, you do need to address their arguments. In particular, if you read those links you will get a (one) professional viewpoint on both the extent of the "pause" and how the modelling relates to it.

 

I read it routinely. I just don't take it as gospel.

 

Modern climate debates often go like this:

 

Sceptic: I'm dubious about renewable energy, especially cost because of the wasteful fossil backup and high costs.

Believer: Climate change is real and you're a denier.

Sceptic: What? Are we talking about the greenhouse effect in general, the man-made component, or just general climate change?

Believer: It's real and you're a terrible person for denying it. Look all this evidence that it's real.

Sceptic: Yes I know it's a real effect, I'd like to talk about how much of it is man-made and and talk about renewables vs nuclear.

Believer: Did the evil fossil fuel companies pay you to say all this?

Sceptic: Forget it.

 

I leave these discussions asking why the believer won't engage meaningfully and whether it's an indication of deceit.

Edited February 8, 2017 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

It might not be neutral, like you're not "neutral" when dealing with particle physics/cosmology cranks, but it is objective, and authoritative. You don't need to use it as your only guide, but you're making a mistake if you're not using it as a guide.

 

 

Most of us try to be unbiased, but the web site that you use goes out of its way to oppose climate change science..

 

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial, that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.

[unbeliever]

Ice caps melting, which might not be due to average temperature rise.

 

Or, in principle, a massive desalination (salty water is denser than fresh), though I can't think how that might happen even on geological timescales. If there are any geochemists on the Forum, maybe they could think of a mechanism?

 

 

I'm at a loss to see how artic melt could affect sea levels as all the ice is already in the sea and therefore contributes identically to sea levels whether it melts or not. The evidence that there is major melting of land-ice in the antarctic is wholly unimpressive.

 

What about thermal expansion?

[El Cid]

I read it routinely. I just don't take it as gospel.

 

 

I notice that the web site owner has a 10KW solar array on his home, and uses an electric car.

 

You should try it. The science may be a little shakey, but what if?