Climate Change: How Much? How Soon?

[price777999]

what about Henrik Svensmark's theory ? he reckons its nothing to do with co2 but the changing solar activity on the sun .......or something like that anyway.

 

[dcraig1]

What real climatologists have to say about Svensmark:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...imatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

It is very unlikely that warming over the last 100 years is mainly due to solar activity. The sun is currently at the coolest point of the short term (11 year) cycle and has become slightly cooler over the last 50 years. But this year is shaping up to be the hottest since thermometers were invented. The issue of changes in the sun being mainly responsible for warming has been extensively studied:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=player_embedded

 

[price777999]

OK but why is he referred to as a denialist or a sceptic as opposed to a scientist with an alternate view ?
how can you be so sure that the scientists or climatologists view that you agree with is emphatically correct ?

 

[dcraig1]

OK but why is he referred to as a denialist or a sceptic as opposed to a scientist with an alternate view ?

Nothing wrong with the moniker "sceptic". Anyone who lays claim to being a scientist must also be a sceptic ie demand well founded evidence for assertions of truth.

The contrarians (with at most a handful of exceptions) are not sceptics. They are deniers because they refuse to examine the mountain of evidence that the climate is warming and that greenhouse gases emitted due to human activity are the main driver. Instead they fixate (at best) on a single scientific paper holding it to undermine decades of research by hundreds of scientists. Even when such papers are thoroughly debunked, the deniers still cling to them, not because of any intrinsic merit in the publication, but because they think they can use them to uphold their ideology.

In this way they are no different from those who deny the causative connection between HIV and AIDS.

how can you be so sure that the scientists or climatologists view that you agree with is emphatically correct ?

Because the evidence is overwhelming.

This assertion is well supported by the fact that 97% of scientists actively publishing climate related research agree with the proposition that the planet is warming and humans are responsible. Furthermore every national science academy, scientific society and professional association of international standing that has issued a public position asserts the reality of AGW. None dispute it. We could add to that list the World Meteorological Organization and most national met offices. And there are yet more. Australia's CSIRO (one of the oldest and largest research organizations in the world) also emphatically states that AGW is very real.

There has been myth foisted onto the public that there is a major scientific disagreement about the reality of AGW. There is not.

But don't take my word for it. Go and have a look at what the real science is saying:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/More-evidence-than-you-can-shake-a-hockey-stick-at.html

or the NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report compiled by 300 scientists from 48 countries:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

 

[arabianights]

lol @ this thread.

What on earth is the point in arguing with climate change deniers? Waste of time and effort.

 

[Splitlink]

lol @ this thread.

What on earth is the point in arguing with climate change deniers? Waste of time and effort.

It's a debate but I do agree with you. If we can't make the world a cleaner place to live, which is a human problem, why are we debating a natural, although undesirable, phenomonom?

 

[arabianights]

Everything is a natural problem. Humans are part of nature.

What pissess me off most about climate change deniers is that they've appointed themselves the official opposition, which is unfortunate because effectively all scientists (and therefore reasonable people) disagree with them and thus by default accept it when lefties start suggesting mad cap schemes.

I'm with Bjorn Lomberg... I really wish more people were...

 

[dcraig1]

It seems even the Daily Mail is having a rethink about it's stance. In a somewhat amazing about face from some of the dreadful nonsense it has previously published, it now asserts:

Yes, global warming is real - and deeply worrying

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ming-real--deeply-worrying.html#ixzz0wCtGTuw8

There will be some seriously confused Daily Mail readers.

And the BBC has issued a public apology to the University of East Anglia:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/johnhumphrys

The Washington Post and Canadian National Post have changed their tune recently as well.

The denialist position is increasingly seen to be untenable. The farrago of lies and misrepresentation of the science is crumbling.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

I think it's real and naturally occurring and that politicians and banks have jumped on it and capitalised from it. Nice way to make some money on an exchange as well as helping coerce EM growth.

 

[dcraig1]

And the day that the word of the Daily Mail "Science" editor means anything will indeed be a sad one.

Obviously, if the amount of crap that was previously published is any indication.

Climategate is dead and buried. No instance of any mainstream climate scientist falsifying results has ever been shown. Every national academy, scientific society and professional association that has anything to say about the matter asserts the reality and seriousness of AGW. And now the rats are jumping the denialist ship because it can no longer float.

 

[dcraig1]

From the (very) conservative Canadian National Post:

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...rs-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/

Papers such as the Daily Mail and National Post were previously the cheerleaders for denialism.