Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

Do you believe man is the major contributer to climate change?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 44.0%
  • No

    Votes: 42 56.0%

  • Total voters
    75
2541 - 2560 of 2607 Posts

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
3,835 Posts
In either case, what we know is that in the Northern Hemisphere, the last 30 years (from 1983–2012) were certainly the warmest in the last 800 years and likely to be the warmest for the last 1,400 years. The updated AR5 report, due out very soon, confirms this.

So where does this sort of statement come from if it is some of the information being used by the consensus to either make their decision or inform their decision. I thought most of the other things I have been reading say we have only been keeping temperature data since the late 1800's and many of those graphs only refer to data from around 1900/1910. All of a sudden we talk like we have reliable references back several hundred years.
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,658 Posts
I think, and I can't claim to have a consensus on this, that we should probably stop flogging the horse...cause I think it's dead...;)
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,576 Posts
In either case, what we know is that in the Northern Hemisphere, the last 30 years (from 1983–2012) were certainly the warmest in the last 800 years and likely to be the warmest for the last 1,400 years. The updated AR5 report, due out very soon, confirms this.

So where does this sort of statement come from if it is some of the information being used by the consensus to either make their decision or inform their decision. I thought most of the other things I have been reading say we have only been keeping temperature data since the late 1800's and many of those graphs only refer to data from around 1900/1910. All of a sudden we talk like we have reliable references back several hundred years.
Here are some explanations



 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,098 Posts
I have posted multiple links and multiple sources of evidence.
Multiple scientific organisations validating the scientific consensus.
Multiple sources of climate evidence.
There is an international climate agreement based on peer reviewed climate science.

You have posted a wattsupwiththat link in response to the scientists asserting there is scientific consensus and explaining the term "scientific consensus."

You seem to be under the impression there are other broadly accepted mechanisms behind global warming but cannot cite a single scientific organisation that is prepared to argue the case.

Again scientific consensus does not mean 100% agreement.
Try reading this again.
You don't need to be a scientist to understand it but it explains the concept.

Warty
Humour me. Post a link to a study (one that hasn't been debunked) that shows there is a scientific consensus. I don't care if it is not 100% consensus, but it needs to be a lot more than 50%. It's no good posting links to people saying there is a consensus, I want you to post evidence form a survey or study that proves 90 odd percent of scientists believe recent global temperature increases are mainly due to human emissions.

As for Scientific bodies. There are numerous articles around on the net where mebers of a society have questioned the statement put out by the society. I will point you to the Geological Society of Australia for a scientific organisation that does not endorse human induced climate change. In fact there official stance has been changed. In 2009 they issued this statement which endorsed human induced climate change https://scentofpine.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gsa-position-statement-and-recommendations-e28093-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-change-july-2009.pdf (you may note towards the end the statement suggested that Geologists should be included in the studies - you know,so they could get hold of their cut of all the money being thrown around to study global warming.

However, that statement caused a bit of an uproar among the members. So in 2010 that statement was withdrawn and they issued a new statement that took a more sceptical approach to global warming. See excerpt below

"Human activities may impact on these Earth-specific factors to cause anthropogenic climate changes, both locally and globally.
Climate sensitivity
A detailed, scientific understanding of the climate history of the Earth, based on the geological record, is essential to appreciate and quantitatively unravel the various sensitivities contributing to climate variations both short term and long-term. The term ‘climate sensitivity’ is used to describe the change in globally averaged temperature that is caused by a given amount of climate forcing. For example, the sensitivity of global climate to variations in Earth’s orbital parameters (axial tilt, orbital eccentricity and precession) is known to be around 5 to 6°C during glacial/interglacial cycles of the past 2–3 million years. However, orbital forcing alone cannot account for this magnitude of sensitivity — there are complex feedback mechanisms that amplify the orbital forcing, some of which are reasonably well understood and some of which require further research and testing to be well understood.

Future climate

The geological record clearly shows that the Earth’s climate will change from what it is today. The critical question, however, is the direction, rate and scale of change and consequent environmental effects on essential human activities such as agriculture and settlement patterns. Geological archives of past climate changes merit careful study to better understand Earth’s complex climate system, including the primary controls and feedback mechanisms that cause these changes."

However, even this statement was withdrawn in 2014 and they GSA decided to conduct a member survey. I believe there was a member survey conducted but I haven't been able to find any results of the survey published yet. So, at the moment the GSA have no statement on global warming/climate change.
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,576 Posts
Warty
Humour me. Post a link to a study (one that hasn't been debunked) that shows there is a scientific consensus. I don't care if it is not 100% consensus, but it needs to be a lot more than 50%. It's no good posting links to people saying there is a consensus, I want you to post evidence form a survey or study that proves 90 odd percent of scientists believe recent global temperature increases are mainly due to human emissions.

As for Scientific bodies. There are numerous articles around on the net where mebers of a society have questioned the statement put out by the society. I will point you to the Geological Society of Australia for a scientific organisation that does not endorse human induced climate change. In fact there official stance has been changed. In 2009 they issued this statement which endorsed human induced climate change https://scentofpine.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gsa-position-statement-and-recommendations-e28093-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-change-july-2009.pdf (you may note towards the end the statement suggested that Geologists should be included in the studies - you know,so they could get hold of their cut of all the money being thrown around to study global warming.

However, that statement caused a bit of an uproar among the members. So in 2010 that statement was withdrawn and they issued a new statement that took a more sceptical approach to global warming. See excerpt below

"Human activities may impact on these Earth-specific factors to cause anthropogenic climate changes, both locally and globally.
Climate sensitivity
A detailed, scientific understanding of the climate history of the Earth, based on the geological record, is essential to appreciate and quantitatively unravel the various sensitivities contributing to climate variations both short term and long-term. The term ‘climate sensitivity’ is used to describe the change in globally averaged temperature that is caused by a given amount of climate forcing. For example, the sensitivity of global climate to variations in Earth’s orbital parameters (axial tilt, orbital eccentricity and precession) is known to be around 5 to 6°C during glacial/interglacial cycles of the past 2–3 million years. However, orbital forcing alone cannot account for this magnitude of sensitivity — there are complex feedback mechanisms that amplify the orbital forcing, some of which are reasonably well understood and some of which require further research and testing to be well understood.

Future climate

The geological record clearly shows that the Earth’s climate will change from what it is today. The critical question, however, is the direction, rate and scale of change and consequent environmental effects on essential human activities such as agriculture and settlement patterns. Geological archives of past climate changes merit careful study to better understand Earth’s complex climate system, including the primary controls and feedback mechanisms that cause these changes."

However, even this statement was withdrawn in 2014 and they GSA decided to conduct a member survey. I believe there was a member survey conducted but I haven't been able to find any results of the survey published yet. So, at the moment the GSA have no statement on global warming/climate change.
lol
Congratulations Thrasher you have come up with an organisation that has no statement on climate change.
Coincidentally the society is made up of geologists, a significant proportion of whom gain their employment working in fossil fuel industries. Do you see any conflict there? ;)

With respect to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, there are numerous studies that conclude north of 90% of climate scientists endorse anthropogenic climate change.
None of them will be unchallenged by the usual suspects like the heartland, Cato institute, watts up with that etc.
The 5th IPCC report is what Brian Cox was referencing
“We had it with the Large Hadron Collider and people were saying: “Is it going to destroy the world?” Well of course it bloody isn’t. But [in scientific terms] we’re putting a confidence level on that statement … at the 95% confidence level, but you don’t want to go there,” he said.

“What I think about climate change actually is it’s obviously true and clearly true to all of us who look at the debate that goes on.”

Cox told the Guardian that climate sceptics had exploited the misconception that there was doubt about climate change in order to push a political agenda. “It can be a way in for people who have an agenda that’s not scientific.




That report or elements of it are disputed by said sceptics. However dispute or not the end result was a climate agreement as a result of the scientific consensus..
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/outcomes-of-cop21-and-ipcc

I understand that doesn't fit with your point of view but the IPCC determined that yes the earth is warming and yes it is as a result of human generated emissions;
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the peer-reviewed literature on climate change every five to six years, and publishes its findings in Assessment Reports. The IPCC reports are themselves subject to an intense peer-review process involving hundreds of scientific experts and government reviewers. This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinised documents in the history of science.

The Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report, released by the IPCC in 2013, provides stronger evidence than ever that the Earth’s climate is changing and human activities are the primary cause.



What is your alternative mechanism and where is the consensus agreement supporting it.
Thus far your position has been to attempt to argue against a consensus position without any supporting information.
Let's for a minute pretend there isn't a consensus position and there weren't agreements in place to limit human emissions.
What is your alternate theory to explain the warming?
Where is the documentation and peer-reviewed consensus supporting it.
Where are the scientific organisations endorsing it.
If you are arguing warming is not occurring show me the evidence it isn't and the organisations supporting that finding.
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,098 Posts
lol
Congratulations Thrasher you have come up with an organisation that has no statement on climate change.
Coincidentally the society is made up of geologists, a significant proportion of whom gain their employment working in fossil fuel industries. Do you see any conflict there? ;)

With respect to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, there are numerous studies that conclude north of 90% of climate scientists endorse anthropogenic climate change.
None of them will be unchallenged by the usual suspects like the heartland, Cato institute, watts up with that etc.
The 5th IPCC report is what Brian Cox was referencing
“We had it with the Large Hadron Collider and people were saying: “Is it going to destroy the world?” Well of course it bloody isn’t. But [in scientific terms] we’re putting a confidence level on that statement … at the 95% confidence level, but you don’t want to go there,” he said.

“What I think about climate change actually is it’s obviously true and clearly true to all of us who look at the debate that goes on.”

Cox told the Guardian that climate sceptics had exploited the misconception that there was doubt about climate change in order to push a political agenda. “It can be a way in for people who have an agenda that’s not scientific.




That report or elements of it are disputed by said sceptics. However dispute or not the end result was a climate agreement as a result of the scientific consensus..
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/outcomes-of-cop21-and-ipcc

I understand that doesn't fit with your point of view but the IPCC determined that yes the earth is warming and yes it is as a result of human generated emissions;
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the peer-reviewed literature on climate change every five to six years, and publishes its findings in Assessment Reports. The IPCC reports are themselves subject to an intense peer-review process involving hundreds of scientific experts and government reviewers. This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinised documents in the history of science.

The Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report, released by the IPCC in 2013, provides stronger evidence than ever that the Earth’s climate is changing and human activities are the primary cause.



What is your alternative mechanism and where is the consensus agreement supporting it.
Thus far your position has been to attempt to argue against a consensus position without any supporting information.
Let's for a minute pretend there isn't a consensus position and there weren't agreements in place to limit human emissions.
What is your alternate theory to explain the warming?
Where is the documentation and peer-reviewed consensus supporting it.
Where are the scientific organisations endorsing it.
If you are arguing warming is not occurring show me the evidence it isn't and the organisations supporting that finding.
re the conflict of Geologists. The large majority of geologists working in the fossil fuel industry would love to see coal demonised. It is the cheapest form of fuel to provide energy but our governments are trying to get away from coal and advocating gas and diesel generators to replace them, along with a little bit of renewables. So they would benefit from seeing coal demonised.

Do you see the conflict of interest fro all climate scientists being paid to study athropogenic global warming if they were to find evidence it isn't caused by man?

You still haven't posted a link to a paper proving the consensus. Don't worry about how I will debunk it, just post it.

I am suggesting the claims of a consensus haven't been proven, in fact they have been made up. You post some peer reviewed study proving there is a consensus and I will post one proving there isn't a consensus

What is my ultimate theory to explain the warming? There are numerous known drivers of climate and others yet to be discovered. Any number of them could cause the current warming. Solar activity, earths orbital change, magnetic variation, tectonic movement, clear-felling of large areas of land, especially coastal tracts, urban heat sinks, "homogenised" temp records, cloud activity, coming out of an ice-age, volcanic activity etc the list is long and I don't have the time right now, but you get the gist

As for the warming not occurring, I don't think many argue that the climate hasn't warmed, but many argue that some (perhaps a lot) of that warming is caused by the manipulation of historic temperature records. Our own BOM has twice changed the historical data and refuses to explain how it was done, ie what scientific methodology was used
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
3,835 Posts
That ones too cryptic for me I have no idea if that is a gag or you posted a dud link.
 

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,576 Posts
re the conflict of Geologists. The large majority of geologists working in the fossil fuel industry would love to see coal demonised. It is the cheapest form of fuel to provide energy but our governments are trying to get away from coal and advocating gas and diesel generators to replace them, along with a little bit of renewables. So they would benefit from seeing coal demonised.
You could hardly argue that the federal government is trying to get away from coal given their anger at Liddell https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/agl-delays-closure-of-liddell-power-plant-after-battle-with-government-20190802-p52d6b.html
and support for Adani https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-way-you-spell-jobs-in-queensland-is-a-d-a-n-i-government-hails-mine-s-approval-20190613-p51xek.html
Regardless, many geologists still rely on the fossil fuel industries for employment and funding. Hardly surprising they are less accepting of the scientific consensus.

Do you see the conflict of interest fro all climate scientists being paid to study athropogenic global warming if they were to find evidence it isn't caused by man?
We've been through this;
On the one hand, you could take a graduate job in the mining sector where you could earn anything from $51,000 to $120,000+, for fly-in-fly-out and remote work in your first year out of university.

On the other, you could stay and complete an honours year which pays nothing.

If masochism is your thing, having completed that honours year, you could then take on a three-year-minimum PhD, which also pays the princely sum of nothing.

With your PhD complete and having spent a minimum four years earning next to nothing, you could then apply for post-doctorate research positions.

But they still probably won't pay as well as that graduate job with the mines. Which by the way is now paying much more because you've been there going on five years and you're no longer on a graduate's salary.

Apart from the fact that climate scientists don't earn any more than other researchers, the idea that you go into research for the money is the greatest trick the anti-climate-science lobby ever pulled.

As Professor Steffen and Dr Dean pointed out, science "isn't a particularly lucrative profession".

"According to the ABS, people employed in full-time jobs related to professional, scientific and technical services earned an average of $1,872 per week in the year to November 2018," they said.

"This is more than some industries, but less than some other industries, such as mining, which paid on average $2,696 per week to full-time employees over the same period."

The fossil fuel industry is worth nearly $5 trillion, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report from 2014.




You still haven't posted a link to a paper proving the consensus. Don't worry about how I will debunk it, just post it.
Again you fail to understand the definition of a scientific consensus;
But just as words like “theory” have a very different meaning when a scientist uses it, the word consensus takes on a very different weight when we speak of scientific consensus.
Take the Big Bang, for example. Shortly before his death just a few years ago, Geoffrey Burbidge lamented how no one was coming up with serious alternatives to the Big Bang any longer. Burbidge, indeed, was a proponent of the Steady-State model going all the way back to the 1950s. After all, when you have an expanding Universe, extrapolating backwards to a hotter, denser, more uniform state isn’t a given.

But then you realize that there are very specific predictions that are laid out by every theoretical idea you can put out there, as well as a whole slew of observational facts they need to be consistent with, including:


    • all the confirmed predictions of General Relativity,
    • all of the fundamental, physical conservation laws,
    • and all of the observable phenomena we’ve ever seen in the Universe.
What the Big Bang predicted that no alternative idea ever has (all the way up to the present day) is an almost perfectly uniform, blackbody spectrum of radiation that would just be a few degrees above absolute zero, coming from all directions in the sky, as well as an abundance of the lightest elements (hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4, and lithium-7) that comes in specific, consistent ratios, and that depends only on the observed ratio of baryons-to-photons in the Universe.

Both of these predictions were later borne out by observations, and to this day, the Big Bang is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists actively working in the field as the consensus position. What’s vital to realize about this is not that the consensus is immune to challenge; quite to the contrary, it’s important for these challenges to occur. It’s necessary for the progression of science that we dare our most cherished assumptions and conclusions to live up to the inquisitions posed to it by new data, methods, observations and tests. The cracks we find in our theories and ideas are what lead to scientific progress. And quite often, the people probing at the cracks are the very ones who oppose the consensus position.
But with that in mind, when we talk about science being settled, we’re not talking about “scientific consensus” as the final answer, but rather as the starting point that everyone agrees on. Future research is usually not based on trying to find alternatives that work better (although we’re always open to it), but rather on how to refine and better understand what’s going on.
For the Big Bang, this has led to questions (and answers) concerning the shape and size of the Universe, the composition of what makes it up, and what initial conditions (and even what physics gave rise to those initial conditions) were necessary for it to begin. When we talk about scientific consensus, we’re talking about an understanding that is thought to be so solid that it will require a whole slew of observations, measurements and experiments to have been grossly misinterpreted for this conclusion to have been reached incorrectly.


Which is the case with anthropogenic climate change. There is a whole slew of observations and measurements to support it.
Your response is to claim the entire cohort of climate scientists involved in the IPCC are part of a huge green conspiracy theory and that data has been made up and falsified.
The science community more broadly hasn't picked this up and world governments despite being lobbied against the science of climate change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
haven't picked it up.


I am suggesting the claims of a consensus haven't been proven, in fact they have been made up. You post some peer reviewed study proving there is a consensus and I will post one proving there isn't a consensus
There is a Paris climate agreement and IPCC climate report that provides practical evidence of the scientific consensus at work. Governments have agreed to limit emissions as a result. Proof of the scientific consensus at work. Like it or not that is how it works, the evidence was reviewed and the result was a clear validation of the existence of AGW and the need to address it

What is my ultimate theory to explain the warming? There are numerous known drivers of climate and others yet to be discovered. Any number of them could cause the current warming. Solar activity,https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
earths orbital change, https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/
magnetic variation,https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40682#ref21
tectonic movement,https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
clear-felling of large areas of land, especially coastal tracts,You sure you aren't a member of the greens? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
urban heat sinks, Are you suggesting the heat trapped by buildings is creating flawed temperature records?
"homogenised" temp records, cloud activity, coming out of an ice-age, volcanic activity etc the list is long and I don't have the time right now, but you get the gist
I'm sorry I gave up on the rest. Basically according to you any far fetched explanation, which almost universally cannot account for the speed of temperature rise, is easier to stomach than the greenhouse effect.


As for the warming not occurring, I don't think many argue that the climate hasn't warmed, but many argue that some (perhaps a lot) of that warming is caused by the manipulation of historic temperature records. Our own BOM has twice changed the historical data and refuses to explain how it was done, ie what scientific methodology was used
Another conspiracy not backed up by evidence.
 

·
LED ZEPPELIN
Nissan
Joined
·
12,297 Posts
Here's a terrific example of an idiot promoting a mistruth regarding hazard reduction burns - from 2013. A good example of why we see this bull **** promoted on social media whenever there's bushfires.

The Greens party has NOTHING to do with hazard reduction burns. If you think they do, you obviously don't do your homework.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,471 Posts

·
Registered
'00TD42T
Joined
·
11,576 Posts




 

·
Registered
Nissan patrol gu
Joined
·
69 Posts
NSW Labor Leader Jodi McKay has lobbied NSW Government to consider shortening daylight savings to help combat climate change - WTF

She has done this on behalf of one of her constituents who has advised the following,

“advises that daylight saving time in NSW had made last summer too hot for walking in Hammond Park, her local park, at 8pm as the temperature at that time remained at the 40°C mark".

Give us a break you fruit loop



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,471 Posts
NSW Labor Leader Jodi McKay has lobbied NSW Government to consider shortening daylight savings to help combat climate change - WTF

She has done this on behalf of one of her constituents who has advised the following,

“advises that daylight saving time in NSW had made last summer too hot for walking in Hammond Park, her local park, at 8pm as the temperature at that time remained at the 40°C mark".

Give us a break you fruit loop



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh come on, we are months away from April 1st ;).
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,471 Posts
OMG, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, we are reaching the point of no return!!!!!!!!! Does this mean it will no longer generate money for groups and individuals and a religion disappears for others?

 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
43,471 Posts
I can't keep up. Is this the 11th or 12th time we are going to reach the point of no return?
If I remember correctly (might need to do a search) I think we reached it in the 80's somewhere, lol.
 
2541 - 2560 of 2607 Posts
Top