Having trouble finding the science behind climate change

[Baconeggcheese]

With climate change turning into a political debate instead of a science debate its getting more and more popular and I constantly see talks about how the science end is coming to a more unified conclusion on it.

Now I often talk to my stepfather about current events and he's the kind of guy who leaves fox news on all day when he's at home and loves bill o'riley if you catch my drift. When we have these discussions he just spews out all of the typical media ticks with no backing and I realize I'm not nearly educated enough on the subject to give him a reasonable answer as to why his nonsense is nonsense.

All I can do is appeal to things guys like neil degrasse tyson or bill nye (the only two guys who ever get asked questions about this stuff.. sigh) have said. I have been trying to google what information I can but with all this political media spin I'm having a lot of trouble finding tangible information about actual studies, how they were done, how they reached their conclusions etc etc.

I was wondering if maybe any of you gents happen to know where I might find some of the information backing the usual suspects claims that "97% of the scientific community agrees about climate change" and how these more recent studies were conducted etc.

TL-DR: I'm having a lot of trouble finding information about climate change that isn't political media spin. I'm looking for some help finding the actual studies that support climate change with information on how they were conducted etc so I can better educate myself on the subject.

[Fexus]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...%2C47&as_sdtp=

[Isuckatpvp]

http://www.ipcc.ch/

There is everything you'll need. Well, it isn't what you'll need because he won't change his mind....but that's the study.

[Baconeggcheese]

Well, it isn't what you'll need because he won't change his mind....but that's the study.

I'd like to learn about it either way xD

I like to say he sips the kool-aid instead of the usual "drinks the kool-aid", because with proper information he will change his opinion on things. The problem is he almost never actively looks for additional information outside of what news channels he gets which is why he succumbs to all the media tick nonsense.

Anyway ty you two hopefully I can manage to navigate / digest some of this stuff, I was definitely not typing "anthropogenic" into google xD may narrow things down a bit.

[Wikko]

Watch the new cosmos show, there was an episode of climate change where it was dumbed down to the average joe. Cant remember the episode number tho

[Anonymous1038853]

While I certainly believe that climate change is in effect, I'm not quite so certain about the consequences and causes of it. Regardless, it's very important to avoid falling to appeals of authority. The point that a majority of the scientific community agrees about a given concept does not necessarily mean that it is valid, and it in and of itself acts as a political statement more than a scientific one. One of the basic fundamentals of science is the concept that truth exists regardless of our perception of it. Suffice it to say, there's always a possibility that the scientific community is simply mistaken. Hence why the position needs to be judged on its own merit and validity, rather than its popularity.

I personally don't find the subject matter particularly interesting: Just controversial.

[Zarc]

Carbon dioxide captures solar heat. Burning oil and coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere = less solar heat bounces off of our planet out into space as higher levels of carbon dioxide in our air and oceans means that more heat gets stored on Earth = the average temperature of the air and the oceans increases.

The oceans and the air of the Earth depend on having carbon dioxide within it. But as is our relationship with food, so is the relationship of the oceans and the air with carbon dioxide. Moderation. A certain level of carbon dioxide is necessary to have in the air and in the oceans, or else no heat would be captured and our planet would be inhabitable. But too much carbon dioxide and the planet would also be inhabitable.

The two planets between us and the Sun are great examples of this. You would think Mercury would be the hottest planet, because it is closest to the sun. But no, the hottest planet is Venus. This is because Venus atmosphere almost only consists of carbon dioxide. Because of this it has an average temperature of about 460 degrees Celsius. Mercury, by contrast, can be some -170 degrees Celsius during the night and some 440 degrees Celsius during the day because it has no carbon dioxide in its atmosphere that captures any heat, so at night when no heat comes directly from the sun the temperature plummets.

This is common knowledge of physics, just go visit your nearest university and talk to some physicists and they will tell you the same thing.

[Nalnik]

Watch the new cosmos show, there was an episode of climate change where it was dumbed down to the average joe. Cant remember the episode number tho

It was the second to last one, June 1st.

[Baconeggcheese]

Cosmos website seems to just internal server error every time I try to get to the episodes portion If you guys know any other websites I may find this (youtube doesn't seem to have it at a quick skim) that'd be peaches. Or even if I just missed the youtube version.

edit: nm think I found it on hulu.

Even though the people who are gonna do this are reading impaired and are gonna do it anyway: Please try not to turn this into a debate thread, that's not why I made it. I didn't make the thread so you could voice your opinion on the subject, I made the thread so that I could find ways to educate myself on the subject by people who y'know... get paid to find information about this stuff.

[Garnier Fructis]

Even though the people who are gonna do this are reading impaired and are gonna do it anyway: Please try not to turn this into a debate thread, that's not why I made it. I didn't make the thread so you could voice your opinion on the subject, I made the thread so that I could find ways to educate myself on the subject by people who y'know... get paid to find information about this stuff.

If you're near a university, see if you can use their library. You should be able to find a good amount of books. You can probably also find the IPCC reports in physical copies, which are really instructive to read through. If you can, start from the very first assessment report, and read them sequentially up to this one.

If you do it this way, you'll really get a sense for just how much the subject has advanced over the years.

Bonus points if you're currently a student at a university, which *should* allow you to directly view some of the research papers online for free through the university.

[Deleted]

Watch the new cosmos show, there was an episode of climate change where it was dumbed down to the average joe. Cant remember the episode number tho

Pretty much all of them debunk psuedo-science coming from news channels.

[Pitkanen]

First thing is to accept that you might be trying to roll a boulder up a mountain by reading about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

In terms of having a conversation with a non-scientist, in the end the details aren't going to mean jack (because above) so you might want to start with:
common myths about climate change (for the sake of debate this is key)
how do greenhouse gases work
how have CO2 levels changed historically
sources and sequestration of CO2 with values
global temp change graphs in 100-200 year span, and many billions of years
positive feedback climate change

[Vyxn]

I was wondering if maybe any of you gents happen to know where I might find some of the information backing the usual suspects claims that "97% of the scientific community agrees about climate change" and how these more recent studies were conducted etc.

]

opposing argument on man made climate change is not allowed if you attempt to show any proof against the 97% consensus or if you point out that the IPCC release politically edited studies and show proof of which you get labeled a conspiracy theorist and silenced

[Citizen T]

How about studies where the outcome of the study doesn't impact on the livelihood of those doing the study?

You wouldn't accept the outcome of a study against AGW done by big oil companies. IPCC funding would be in the toilet if they came out and said global warming (excuse me... climate change) wasn't occurring.

[Nightspear]

Most recent thing I heard about global warming. It's too late to even bother, we are already fucked.

[Garnier Fructis]

How about studies where the outcome of the study doesn't impact on the livelihood of those doing the study?

You wouldn't accept the outcome of a study against AGW done by big oil companies. IPCC funding would be in the toilet if they came out and said global warming (excuse me... climate change) wasn't occurring.

Fucking every study ever done by man on any subject fits this criterion, because researchers don't research for free. Which means that you need to either take issue with every field of study or else find some integrity and stop pushing this cherry picked conspiracy shit.

- - - Updated - - -

opposing argument on man made climate change is not allowed if you attempt to show any proof against the 97% consensus or if you point out that the IPCC release politically edited studies and show proof of which you get labeled a conspiracy theorist and silenced

If you show me one, I'll read it. The likely problem you're having is that you think people should just accept it if you produce a study, instead of applying critical thinking and seeing if the authors made any egregious errors.

[Vyxn]

Conspiracy shit.

this thread will be nothing but an echo chamber because any opposing argument will quickly get dismissed as a conspiracy theory and reported
there wont be any debate on man made climate change not on these forums just an echo chamber
it is pointless to even bring up the topic

[Citizen T]

Conspiracy shit.

So...

If you deride the results of one persons's study because it affects their bottom dollar it's ok? i.e. big oil

but..

If you deride the results of another person's study because it affects their bottom dollar it's "conspiracy shit"? i.e. IPCC

You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

[Vyxn]

If you show me one, I'll read it. The likely problem you're having is that you think people should just accept it if you produce a study, instead of applying critical thinking and seeing if the authors made any egregious errors.

cant not on these forums even when the source was a respected one like the wall street journal
but what the hell
I will give you a link to the thread that disputes the 97% consensus claim but wont discuss it I learned my lesson

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...mate-Change-97

I will see you in a week

[Garnier Fructis]

You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

When you have 19 data points that say "x", and 1 data point that says "x-3", you tend to look at why that one data point is so different from the rest.

I've also read enough of the "big oil" studies that I feel pretty justified in deriding them, since they're almost always riddled with basic physics errors.