sgtkate Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Rounded is a big ask. skepticalscience.com (pro-consensus despite the name) is useful. In particular their summary of the temperature data adjustments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html. wattswiththat.com is also useful, as it makes it its business to question the consensus. In the papers, Christopher Booker's column in the telegraph is anti-consensus and George Monbiot's column in the guardian is pro-consensus. The debate is almost invariably badly framed by the pro-consensus side. The issue for most (certainly for me) is what is the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system. This is the amount of warming expected from a doubling of the CO2 concentration on the atmosphere. A sceptic would typically put it around 0.1ºC and a believer at about 0.3-0.5ºC. The believers like to couch the debate in absolute terms: Is there any human contribution at all? If so then jump to the worst case of about 0.5ºC, or even to the wild ideas about massive runaway warning, without any intermediate discussion. Current CO2 levels are around 0.04%, up from about 0.02% 100 or so years ago. The primary positive feedback effect hypothesised to get from 0.1ºC to 0.3ºC or more is from water vapour. Small warming from CO2 -> more water vapour in the air -> more warming and so on. Whether water vapour is warming or cooling depends on whether it forms clouds and what kind of clouds it forms. High cloud is cooling as it reflects light from the sun back into space. Water vapour itself is warming as it acts as a second greenhouse gas. Biological feedbacks also play a role which is not well understood. Photosynthesising life feeds on CO2, so simplistically ought to do better in a CO2 rich atmosphere. On the other hand it is adapted for lower CO2 levels, and largely lives in the sea. Higher CO2 decreases the pH of the sea. I certainly haven't listed all the possible feedbacks here. But the references I've given should cover the others. Low CO2 sensitivity would not justify aggressive cuts in CO2 production as it would be more beneficial and economic to take advantage of higher crop yields etc and gradually adapt to a gently changing climate. High CO2 sensitivity might make things change dangerously rapidly to the extent that it might be worth the enormous expense and disruption of trying to reduce or limit our CO2 production. Genuinely, thankyou. I shall check out those links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Genuinely, thankyou. I shall check out those links. Thank you. It's nice to talk to somebody who hasn't dogmatically taken a position and actually wants to discuss the matter honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Thank you. It's nice to talk to somebody who hasn't dogmatically taken a position and actually wants to discuss the matter honestly. Simply put, I believe in evidence and science. And to be honest my heart would probably fall into the pro-consensus camp, but you shouldn't blindly follow anything. That's for the religious amongst us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 Apart from the basic CO2 warming effect, what parts of the science of climate change have you determined to be "sound"? I havnt seen anyone disprove any climate science. They dont have an alternative reason for a warmer earth. What do you think is causing the wamer earth? The earth is warming and the oceans are rising due to the warmer water and melting ice. Did you answer sgtkates question - "Are you saying that the earth isn't getting warmer at all?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Simply put, I believe in evidence and science. And to be honest my heart would probably fall into the pro-consensus camp, but you shouldn't blindly follow anything. That's for the religious amongst us Couldn't agree more. I was always pro-consensus myself. I was the way the consensus advocates conducted themselves in debates and in written articles which made me doubt them and start to look into the matter myself. If you have a strong case, you shouldn't fear honest debate, nor should you feel the need to try and shut down your opponents with personal attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Genuinely, thankyou. I shall check out those links. Those links are from web sites in support of anti-climate change, they are biased. Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science Edited January 5, 2016 by El Cid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Those links are from web sites in support of anti-climate change, they are biased. Try reading something. skepticalscience.com is openly and emphatically on your side. Just look at the front page. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 11:00 ---------- I havnt seen anyone disprove any climate science. They dont have an alternative reason for a warmer earth. What do you think is causing the wamer earth? The earth is warming and the oceans are rising due to the warmer water and melting ice. Did you answer sgtkates question - "Are you saying that the earth isn't getting warmer at all?". I have answered the question thoroughly. You on the other hand have not answered any of my questions at all. I presume you don't have any answers. What on earth does it mean to "disprove any climate science"? There are hundreds of effects which contribute to global average surface temperatures. I think anthropogenic CO2 is one of them. The issue is what contribution does it make, combined with various feedbacks, to the total. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 11:01 ---------- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science For the love of god READ! The wiki page you quote says that the site is dedicated to demolishing the arguments of the sceptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 If you have a strong case, you shouldn't fear honest debate, nor should you feel the need to try and shut down your opponents with personal attacks. If anyone is discussing climate change in an unbiased way, they would not tell people to read links from the Green Party, Greenpeace or web sites like the skeptical science web site. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 11:06 ---------- There are hundreds of effects which contribute to global average surface temperatures. I think anthropogenic CO2 is one of them. The issue is what contribution does it make, combined with various feedbacks, to the total. I guess that is a yes, the earth is getting warmer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 If anyone is discussing climate change in an unbiased way, they would not tell people to read links from the Green Party, Greenpeace or web sites like the skeptical science web site. How is one to form a reasoned opinion without hearing both sides of the argument? What on earth are you on about? I guess that is a yes, the earth is getting warmer? Well spotted. You've still not answered any of my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 If anyone is discussing climate change in an unbiased way, they would not tell people to read links from the Green Party, Greenpeace or web sites like the skeptical science web site. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 11:06 ---------- I guess that is a yes, the earth is getting warmer? Or a no, http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/ 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