Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Robin-H]

The thing is we don't have the level of detail for the rest of the world for that period that we do today. So what seems drastic in comparison to the proxy data is most probably just a feature of seeing better detail.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2018 at 09:26 ----------

 

 

I fully understand that you don't want it to matter. It matters because you want to cliam that today's temperatures are out of order with the normal variability of climate. If they are not then there is nothing to react to. Basic stuff.

 

 

 

The hose pipe delivers a tiny amount of water compared to the rainfall over the whole catchmet area of the lake.

 

No sane person disputes that human activity has a warming effect on the world.

 

How much of one is one of the big questions about the subject.

 

Even bigger is the question of what at all there is to fear about a slightly warmer world.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2018 at 09:29 ----------

 

It drastically changed the climate of the vast area around the Aral.

 

It also has lead to the water table for many millions of square kilometers dropping a lot.

 

This has resulted in less water on the land and thus more water in the oceans. That must have caused a rise in sea level. It could be that the observed rise in sea level in the period 1950 to now is due, mostly, to this sort of factor.

 

No. It is clear that you still don't understand.

 

Firstly, today's temperatures are out of natural variability of the climate.

 

Secondly, your logic is horrendously flawed.

 

You are arguing that if it can be proven that the earth's temperatures changed as quickly as we are witnessing today in the past, then we can throw away all science, all our knowledge on what the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses on the heat retention on the atmosphere are, and just go around with our hands over our ears saying 'I don't care what the science says, it has happened before therefore it is not possible that the causes this time are different'. That is madness.

 

Instead of a lake let's use a paddling pool as an analogy (so the point of the analogy can't be confused).

 

In the past we know the paddling pool filled up naturally with rain, but it has now been emptied. Someone has now placed a large hose into the paddling pool and turned it on.

 

You are arguing that is doesn't matter that the evidence that the hose is filling the paddling pool is demonstrable, you are going to refute that it is and say that because it filled with rain naturally in the past, it must therefore be filling because of the rain now. You are arguing that even when the evidence is there, it is impossible that there is a different cause. That is patently absurd.

[El Cid]

It is also valuable to be in a position to understand why some people may have a different take on what appears in the media, but it doesn't take much to become better informed than your average news reporter.

 

Several large corporations within the fossil fuel industry provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about the trustworthiness of climate science. Exxon Mobil and the Koch family foundations have been identified as especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Private_sector

[Tim Grindley]

No. It is clear that you still don't understand.

 

Firstly, today's temperatures are out of natural variability of the climate.

 

It is cooler than the Bronze age holocene optimal. The temperature of today is not therefore out of line with the climate since the start of this interglacial.

 

I know you don't waht this to be the case but it is.

 

Secondly, your logic is horrendously flawed.

 

You are arguing that if it can be proven that the earth's temperatures changed as quickly as we are witnessing today in the past, then we can throw away all science, all our knowledge on what the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses on the heat retention on the atmosphere are, and just go around with our hands over our ears saying 'I don't care what the science says, it has happened before therefore it is not possible that the causes this time are different'. That is madness.

 

I get your horror at the possibility of your doom cult being shown to be silly.

 

It is upon you/the alarmist crowd to show that the causes of the temperature rise 1979 to 1998 are due to human activity not I to prove the negative.

 

It is possible that the cause of this temperature increase is humanity. It is possible that it is increased CO2. I don't know, and neither do you.

 

Instead of a lake let's use a paddling pool as an analogy (so the point of the analogy can't be confused).

 

In the past we know the paddling pool filled up naturally with rain, but it has now been emptied. Someone has now placed a large hose into the paddling pool and turned it on.

 

You are arguing that is doesn't matter that the evidence that the hose is filling the paddling pool is demonstrable, you are going to refute that it is and say that because it filled with rain naturally in the past, it must therefore be filling because of the rain now. You are arguing that even when the evidence is there, it is impossible that there is a different cause. That is patently absurd.

 

I'll stick with the lake.

 

We know that the natural varible factors effecting the climate are large enough that they could account for the observed temperature changes over the last century. Obviously the changes before 1950 have to be due to factors other than CO2 from humanity becuase we did not produce significant quantities compared with today and still had big climate shifts. The little ice age being one such which saw the Thames freeze over every year.

 

Thus the effect of humanity is something between a garden hose into a large lake upwards. Humanity does not know the degree of impact it is having.

 

The Royal society has a figure of 3c for a doubling of CO2.

 

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294

 

This seems a little on the high side given the observed data. Most papers since about 2014 have been talking about a lower figure 1.2c to 2.3c ish. Either of these values will equate to nothing to fuss about at all.

[Robin-H]

It is cooler than the Bronze age holocene optimal. The temperature of today is not therefore out of line with the climate since the start of this interglacial.

 

I know you don't waht this to be the case but it is.

 

 

 

I get your horror at the possibility of your doom cult being shown to be silly.

 

It is upon you/the alarmist crowd to show that the causes of the temperature rise 1979 to 1998 are due to human activity not I to prove the negative.

 

It is possible that the cause of this temperature increase is humanity. It is possible that it is increased CO2. I don't know, and neither do you.

 

 

 

I'll stick with the lake.

 

We know that the natural varible factors effecting the climate are large enough that they could account for the observed temperature changes over the last century. Obviously the changes before 1950 have to be due to factors other than CO2 from humanity becuase we did not produce significant quantities compared with today and still had big climate shifts. The little ice age being one such which saw the Thames freeze over every year.

 

Thus the effect of humanity is something between a garden hose into a large lake upwards. Humanity does not know the degree of impact it is having.

 

The Royal society has a figure of 3c for a doubling of CO2.

 

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294

 

This seems a little on the high side given the observed data. Most papers since about 2014 have been talking about a lower figure 1.2c to 2.3c ish. Either of these values will equate to nothing to fuss about at all.

 

I'm beginning to think you must be trolling. I hope so anyway, and that no one is actually this divorced of logic.

 

Nobody, I repeat nobody, is claiming that the temperature today is warmer than at any point in history. It is the rate of change of temperature, and that fact that there is no natural reason that can be pointed to as the cause as to why the change in climate can not be put down to natural variability. Please tell me you understand that?!

 

We know exactly what caused the little ice age, it's called the maunder minimum. What is your point?

 

We have demonstrated the cause of the recent warming of the planet. Why on earth are you claiming that it is still for us to prove? We have - you just don't want to accept the science for some reason.

 

You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy flat earther.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Robin-H

[cgksheff]

......

 

We know exactly what caused the little ice age, it's caused the maunder minimum. ........

 

This is not true.

[Robin-H]

This is not true.

 

I meant called, not caused.

 

It is the prevailing theory, and backed up with a wealth of scientific literature to support it. It may not have been the only contributor, and other factors such as volcanic activity and changing land use may have also contributed.

 

I would have gone into more depth however I think that would have been lost on the reader. The point I am making is that we have a good understanding of what caused the little ice age, just like we have a good understanding of what is causing the climate to change today. The causes are different, but that is perfectly reasonable..

Edited January 30, 2018 by Robin-H

[ads36]

... 2.3C

 

...nothing to fuss about at all.

 

2.3 degrees = nothing to fuss about at all?

 

Those models will probably be based on The world pulling it's finger out, and sticking to the Paris Climate Deal, which isn't happening. it's really very likely that the agreed emissions targets will be missed, by miles.

Edited January 30, 2018 by ads36

[cgksheff]

I meant called, not caused.

 

It is the prevailing theory, and backed up with a wealth of scientific literature to support it. It may not have been the only contributor, and other factors such as volcanic activity and changing land use may have also contributed.

 

I would have gone into more depth however I think that would have been lost on the reader. The point I am making is that we have a good understanding of what caused the little ice age, just like we have a good understanding of what is causing the climate to change today. The causes are different, but that is perfectly reasonable..

 

If you are discussing something that relies upon scientific exactitude, then you must be precise in the language that you use.

 

When you get one thing wrong, you provide just cause for those arguing/debating with you to call into doubt your other claims.

Then you have to round the full circle again.

[Tim Grindley]

I'm beginning to think you must be trolling. I hope so anyway, and that no one is actually this divorced of logic.

 

Nobody, I repeat nobody, is claiming that the temperature today is warmer than at any point in history. It is the rate of change of temperature, and that fact that there is no natural reason that can be pointed to as the cause as to why the change in climate can not be put down to natural variability. Please tell me you understand that?!

 

We know exactly what caused the little ice age, it's called the maunder minimum. What is your point?

 

We have demonstrated the cause of the recent warming of the planet. Why on earth are you claiming that it is still for us to prove? We have - you just don't want to accept the science for some reason.

 

You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy flat earther.

 

The maunder minimum is a clear reason for the little ice age. Sure.

 

What is the reason for the Holocene optimal? Nobody knows.

 

You do not know that the rate of change 1979 to 1998 is unusual. It has been remarkably stable since with extremely little change.

 

There is no evidence that this is out of line with the normal variability of climate.

 

However, I tried to move the discussion on. I tried to get you to put some sort of number on your expectations of climate change. I will be more explicit;

 

How much temperature rise do you expect tohappen by 2100? And why? I would like you to cite some science or something to support your number.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2018 at 19:09 ----------

 

2.3 degrees = nothing to fuss about at all?

 

Those models will probably be based on The world pulling it's finger out, and sticking to the Paris Climate Deal, which isn't happening. it's really very likely that the agreed emissions targets will be missed, by miles.

Nope. That is the do nothing number.

 

The panic and carry on killing millions in the name of avoiding it number is not much different but that is not the point at the moment.

[Robin-H]

The maunder minimum is a clear reason for the little ice age. Sure.

 

What is the reason for the Holocene optimal? Nobody knows.

 

You do not know that the rate of change 1979 to 1998 is unusual. It has been remarkably stable since with extremely little change.

 

There is no evidence that this is out of line with the normal variability of climate.

 

However, I tried to move the discussion on. I tried to get you to put some sort of number on your expectations of climate change. I will be more explicit;

 

How much temperature rise do you expect tohappen by 2100? And why? I would like you to cite some science or something to support your number.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2018 at 19:09 ----------

 

Nope. That is the do nothing number.

 

The panic and carry on killing millions in the name of avoiding it number is not much different but that is not the point at the moment.

 

It's simply not true that we don't know what caused the Holocene Optimum. I've already given you one of the causes (the Milankovitch cycles).

 

It is also simply not true that the rate of global warming from 1979 to 1998 (which was a El Nino year, so is the reason why it was hotter than normal) was greater than the rate of change since. It is definitely not true that temperatures have been stable since then.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

Where is this stable period since 1998 you talk of?

 

Please, I implore you to do some reading on the subject before talking about things you clearly haven't researched. If you do that reading, you'll see what the current thinking of temperature rise by 2100 will be.