El Cid Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 If they cannot hindcast then, yes, they have no demonstrated ability to forcast. Since we dont have information about the sun and all the other variables, how do you think they can 'hindcast'? ---------- Post added 28-01-2018 at 18:15 ---------- 2, It is mainly the Northern hemisphere temperatures that are showing increases now. Can you show clear thinking, as to why you do not agree the whole planet is warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) 1, How do you know it was only the Northern hemisphere that was warmer? Although at least you agree that it did happen. 2, It is mainly the Northern hemisphere temperatures that are showing increases now. 3, It does clearly refute the claim that you know that it is human activity that is the whole cause for the present temperature being slightly warmer than some arbitary level you think they should be. ---------- Post added 28-01-2018 at 17:19 ---------- If they cannot hindcast then, yes, they have no demonstrated ability to forcast. That is the way science/clear thinking works. And, no, a good guess will not work. You will need to show your methodology and mechanism for prediction. Where do I begin.. To answer your first question - it's called science, specifically paleoclimatology. We know that the Holocene Optimum was mainly a warming of the northern hemisphere due to the study of diatoms, forams, coral, ice cores, tree rings, and sediment cores. We also now have a very good understanding of the variations in orbit of the earth. These can now be easily calculated, and we can calculate the amount of solar radiation that would have reached the different latitudes of earth during earth's history. Our prediction that the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the Holocene Optimum would have been warmer than today (winters were actually colder than today) is therefore predicted by our understanding of the earth's orbit, and also confirmed by paleoclimatological findings. I don't understand what your other points are trying to make. The argument is very confused. Edited January 28, 2018 by Robin-H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Grindley Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Since we dont have information about the sun and all the other variables, how do you think they can 'hindcast'? ---------- Post added 28-01-2018 at 18:15 ---------- Can you show clear thinking, as to why you do not agree the whole planet is warming? Quite. That is the trouble. ---------- Post added 28-01-2018 at 18:39 ---------- Where do I begin.. To answer your first question - it's called science, specifically paleoclimatology. We know that the Holocene Optimum was mainly a warming of the northern hemisphere due to the study of diatoms, forams, coral, ice cores, tree rings, and sediment cores. We also now have a very good understanding of the variations in orbit of the earth. These can now be easily calculated, and we can calculate the amount of solar radiation that would have reached the different latitudes of earth during earth's history. Our prediction that the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the Holocene Optimum would have been warmer than today (winters were actually colder than today) is therefore predicted by our understanding of the earth's orbit, and also confirmed by paleoclimatological findings. I don't understand what your other points are trying to make. The argument is very confused. It is only confusing to those who are blinded by faith. For the present climate to be the result of some sort of massive human doing it is necessary to show that it has not happened before. That today's climate is significantly different to preceding times. Failing to do that means that the whole cliam that humanity is having more than a tiny effect on the world's temperature blows away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Quite. That is the trouble. ---------- Post added 28-01-2018 at 18:39 ---------- It is only confusing to those who are blinded by faith. For the present climate to be the result of some sort of massive human doing it is necessary to show that it has not happened before. That today's climate is significantly different to preceding times. Failing to do that means that the whole cliam that humanity is having more than a tiny effect on the world's temperature blows away. Clearly you don't understand what faith is. What I just described is the exact opposite of faith. I suggest you do a little bit of reading, a little bit of research and come back and debate. Your statement that the only way to prove climate change is anthropogenic is to show that it has not happened naturally before is so obviously flawed it's laughable. It's impossible to have an adult conversation with somebody who clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Since we dont have information about the sun and all the other variables, how do you think they can 'hindcast'? Astrophysicists seem to base their theories on what the sun etc was doing millions of years ago to understand the nature of the universe and to try to predict future events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Grindley Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Clearly you don't understand what faith is. What I just described is the exact opposite of faith. I suggest you do a little bit of reading, a little bit of research and come back and debate. Your statement that the only way to prove climate change is anthropogenic is to show that it has not happened naturally before is so obviously flawed it's laughable. It's impossible to have an adult conversation with somebody who clearly has no idea what they are talking about. If fluctuations in climate can cuase temperatures such as we are currently experienceing then it is not going to be necessary to involve human factors in explaining today's temperatures. If you can accurately model the past temperatures and show why they were what they were then you can do the same for today's and tomorrow's. Untill then you are making up drivel. Basic science. ---------- Post added 29-01-2018 at 09:36 ---------- Astrophysicists seem to base their theories on what the sun etc was doing millions of years ago to understand the nature of the universe and to try to predict future events. They look at other stars and see how the general progress of a star's life goes on. But in ordeer to model the temperature fluctuations of the earth over the last few thousand years, an eyeblink in a star's life, the level of accuracy is going to be a big issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Since we dont have information about the sun and all the other variables, how do you think they can 'hindcast'? It'd be interesting if they ran the climate models "in reverse"..wonder if the results would match reality..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 If you can accurately model the past temperatures and show why they were what they were then you can do the same for today's and tomorrow's. Untill then you are making up drivel. Most people accept that their may be some truth in what climate science says; if they are wrong, should we stop making our sea defenses stronger. The Thames barrier was built with rising sea levels in the plans, which has proven correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) If fluctuations in climate can cuase temperatures such as we are currently experienceing then it is not going to be necessary to involve human factors in explaining today's temperatures. If you can accurately model the past temperatures and show why they were what they were then you can do the same for today's and tomorrow's. Untill then you are making up drivel. Basic science. ---------- Post added 29-01-2018 at 09:36 ---------- They look at other stars and see how the general progress of a star's life goes on. But in ordeer to model the temperature fluctuations of the earth over the last few thousand years, an eyeblink in a star's life, the level of accuracy is going to be a big issue. I'll assume you're being genuine and not trolling, and so I will try to explain as clearly as I can why that thinking is wrong, very very wrong. Firstly, we have not been able to demonstrate that the climate of the past experienced the same changes that we are experiencing today. That is not to say that the climate has not fluctuated significantly in the past, but we have not been able to prove that there has been a time when the climate has warmed as quickly as it is doing now. That however is irrelevant. The important thing to consider is even if we did prove that the climate had periods when it warmed very rapidly in the past (the same rate as today) it would do absolutely nothing to disprove anthropogenic climate change. We know the effects of greenhouses gases of temperature. We can model how much temperatures will rise by depending on how much the concentration of greenhouses gasses in the atmosphere increases by. This is not easy, as the earth is a very complex system and there are feedback loops and knock on effects that will slightly alter those calculations, however the overall impact remains. Image you had an empty lake that you know used to be full of water due to rainfall over thousands of years. The lake is now empty, but somebody has put a hose into the lake and turned the tap on. It is also raining. The lake started to fill. Using your line of argument you would be arguing that the hose pipe was not contributing at all to the lake filling up because we know that in the past the lake filled up naturally because of rain water. Hopefully you see that that is nonsensical, however that is what you are arguing now. We know that we are pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. We know what effect CO2 and methane (and other greenhouses gasses like water vapour) has on the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere. We know the average temperature of the earth is increasing.. Edited January 29, 2018 by Robin-H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Most people accept that their may be some truth in what climate science says; if they are wrong, should we stop making our sea defenses stronger. The Thames barrier was built with rising sea levels in the plans, which has proven correct. No we shouldn't stop making sea defences stronger; its wise to guard against sea level rise but the question is, are the sea levels rising because of man made climate change? Too many people WANT it to be man made because dealing with that fits with their authoritarian agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now