Climate Science vs Deniers.

[Reeve]

Yes, climate change is real. Yes, we as a species are contributing to it's effects- but we are not the sole cause. I think it would really behoove mankind to rid itself of militarism, banks and corporations. Until we're serious about dealing with these three things, then we aren't really serious about not destroying our environment.

Two of those things are what have created the modern world. I'd rather not return to the days before banks and corporations, thank you.

I'm all for reform, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[ringpriest]

Climatologist and climate-change activist James Hansen (his activism is controversial, his scientific work is widely respected) has (with a number of co-authors) released a new paper on the effects of climate change via the open-access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, that predicts catastrophic sea-level rise in the foreseeable future as the result of accelerating climate change.

"Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous"

Abstract. There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Human-made climate forcing is stronger and more rapid than paleo forcings, but much can be learned by combining insights from paleoclimate, climate modeling, and on-going observations. We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge. Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms. We focus attention on the Southern Ocean's role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, which in turn is a tight control knob on global climate. The millennial (500–2000 year) time scale of deep ocean ventilation affects the time scale for natural CO2 change, thus the time scale for paleo global climate, ice sheet and sea level changes. This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human-made climate forcing. Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range. We conclude that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth's energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric.

Hansen has deliberately eschewed pre-publication peer review, and instead presented his newest findings in a way that is going to make the ensuing peer review very public. Deniers who have any shred of intelligence or self-respect should pay close attention - Hansen's predictions are both terrifying and on the extreme end of current modeling; if you want to see what actual skepticism and science look like (as opposed to oil-billionaire propaganda), follow the energetic discussion that's certain to result among scientists in response to this. (Climatologist Ruth Mottram (from the Danish Meteorological Institute) seems to have started one ball rolling on twitter.)

[Gheld]

You keep using that "theory" word wrong. A scientific theory is a fact, not a hypothesis. It's not the Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis. It's the Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change. A scientific theory is as close as we get to a proven fact. There's no such thing as an "unproven theory." Unproven hypotheses? Sure, but Anthropogenic Climate Change isn't one of those. To say otherwise means you doubt the scientific method or the validity of the thousands of peer reviewed documents that prove AgCC true.

Except the magnitude of those changes are blown out of proportion by using relative units as opposed to absolute units.

If the "normal" mean temperature is 15C
And the temperature anomaly in a particular year is half a degree... One might look at it and say "OMG THE TEMPERATURE IS UP 3.333%"

But in reality, thermal energy is in direct proportion to temperature and you have to use absolute temperature, otherwise you'll quickly find that when the temperature drops below zero energy becomes negative, and all you need for faster than light travel is ice cubes.
You're talking a change from 288.15K to 288.65K

A change in energy of less than 1/5th of a percent. Brace yourselves because the next Hurricane Katrina is going to be 1.0017 times as devastating.

Not to mention the actual increase in temperature has become highly disjointed from what would be expected with how high the atmospheric CO2 has gotten now. Which means anthropogenic warming is currently acting against a huge natural cooling trend.

The more alarming question is how much longer anthropogenic warming will win this battle. Because in case you haven't noticed, most of the worlds crops are in areas that would be rendered worthless by a moderate reglaciation leaving all of the viable agricultural space in areas that are highly contested, thereby marking the end of civilization as we know it.

[Osmeric]

I don't think human impact on climate is proven. Climate and models are very complex; the models still have much empiricism in them. Trying to depict climate science as being on a level of certainty like gravity or electromagnetism is not honest.

However, I think the evidence is more than good enough to drive government policy. This is not criminal law where a case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before action is taken.

[Fullmetal89]

There's a difference between Global Warming deniers and people who believe the human effect on climate is no where near as exaggerated as certain politicians would lead us to believe. Protecting the environment should not be a partisan issue and it shouldn't be politicized or used by politicians to get what they want.

[Gheld]

I don't think human impact on climate is proven. Climate and models are very complex.

However, I think the evidence is more than good enough to drive government policy. This is not criminal law where a case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before action is taken.

The problem is that big money has more say in government policy, so ultimately those policies are going to be aimed at penalizing the little guy... "It's not our fault we have big gigantic trucks rolling all over the road 24/7... John Q Public needs his Happymeal toys we're just responding to the demand."

Okay... carbon tax...except on diesel.

EDIT: Plus also people need to stop supporting abhorrently wasteful industries such as fast food.

[Pterodactylus]

The question is the extent to which mankind has played a role in its changing, which is a lot more up in the air and 'debatable' than a mere change in climate.

Except that it is not up in the air.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think human impact on climate is proven.

Just because you "don't think" doesn't change reality.

[Osmeric]

Just because you "don't think" doesn't change reality.

Or maybe it just means I have a very high standard for what I take to be scientific "proof". Note that scientific proof, on the level of that needed to call something definitely true in science, is not and should not be needed to drive a policy response.

[wheresmywoft]

I am pretty sure most people don't deny that climate changes and is changing. The question is the extent to which mankind has played a role in its changing, which is a lot more up in the air and 'debatable' than a mere change in climate.

Concerning the allegations of recent drastic temperature change, we are basing it entirely off of our perception of past temperature changes. Worldview does play into the conclusion we draw from this info.

I think when you come into a thread, you should first post that you don't accept observational proof. Would save a lot of people, a lot of time.

[Gheld]

Or maybe it just means I have a very high standard for what I take to be scientific "proof". Note that scientific proof, on the level of that needed to call something definitely true in science, is not and should not be needed to drive a policy response.

But my favorite left wing author said it's a "proven science"

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways osmeric is correct. Anthropogenic warming is evident. But to say it is proven you have to be able to make exact mathematical predictions with 100% consistency (or account for all anomalies).

So until you can say "I have calculated that the mean temperature anomaly for 2017 will be 0.6C" and be right you have a hypothesis... not a theory.

That is how science works for all things.

Are hypotheses often true? Yes. But using strong language like proof when you don't actually technically have it in order to create hysteria is just bad science. It's not doing environmentalism any favors either.

[ringpriest]

Anyways osmeric is correct. Anthropogenic warming is evident. But to say it is proven you have to be able to make exact mathematical predictions with 100% consistency (or account for all anomalies).

So until you can say "I have calculated that the mean temperature anomaly for 2017 will be 0.6C" and be right you have a hypothesis... not a theory.

That is how science works for all things.

Are hypotheses often true? Yes. But using strong language like proof when you don't actually technically have it in order to create hysteria is just bad science. It's not doing environmentalism any favors either.

This is ludicrous hair-splitting. It's like carrying on a running argument with traffic cop, while you're heading for a cliff at 90 miles an hour. "Well, you know officer, your radar gun isn't perfectly accurate, and neither is my speedometer. At best, both are just approximations, and since the car is in gear, it would continue heading forward even if I did take my foot off the accelerator, so really, your claim that I'm speeding towards a cliff is not 100% accurate. And we don't even know how far down the drop really is!" Anyone doing anything but applying the brake in such circumstances is a fucking idiot who deserves what they get.

Unfortunately, we're all in the same metaphorical car and have to reach some sort of consensus in order to start usefully braking (at least for now - I won't be surprised to see unilateral geoengineering efforts before too long. And won't that be fun. ) Personally, I'd like to see some sort of central registry for deniers - where they can proudly state their convictions with courage, so that, a century from now, we'll know whose corpses ought to be dug up and re-processed into toilet paper.

[Endus]

Climatologist and climate-change activist James Hansen (his activism is controversial, his scientific work is widely respected) has (with a number of co-authors) released a new paper on the effects of climate change via the open-access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, that predicts catastrophic sea-level rise in the foreseeable future as the result of accelerating climate change.

"Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous"

Hansen has deliberately eschewed pre-publication peer review, and instead presented his newest findings in a way that is going to make the ensuing peer review very public. Deniers who have any shred of intelligence or self-respect should pay close attention - Hansen's predictions are both terrifying and on the extreme end of current modeling; if you want to see what actual skepticism and science look like (as opposed to oil-billionaire propaganda), follow the energetic discussion that's certain to result among scientists in response to this. (Climatologist Ruth Mottram (from the Danish Meteorological Institute) seems to have started one ball rolling on twitter.)

I'll freely admit I haven't read his most recent paper there, but a point you mentioned is pretty important; scientists have generally been pretty conservative in their estimates. The projection models, like any projection of complex systems, involve a range of outcomes, and that range widens over time as that uncertainty (which isn't the same as a lack of confidence in the projection) compounds. As more study is done, the ranges narrow, but in general, scientists will stick to what they're 95% sure will happen, which is inevitably on the lower end of the range. Even a 50% likelihood outcome is going to be more severe than this, and is right in the middle of what's projected. They're not "doom and gloom" prophets, making everything seem worse than it could possibly be; if anything, they're being overly conservative and underplaying how bad the risk could be, while focusing on how bad it will at least be.

Not that we should swap that and start preparing for the 5% extreme because OMG OMG OMG sky is falling. But understanding what the models project, and what these ranges mean, is important.

I don't think human impact on climate is proven. Climate and models are very complex; the models still have much empiricism in them. Trying to depict climate science as being on a level of certainty like gravity or electromagnetism is not honest.

It's precisely honest. The chief difference is that "gravity" is one sole vector. In practice, when determining actual orbital pathing, other factors can come into play and things will go slightly off what was projected, because reality isn't as "clean" as a single factor.

Climate change is a "wicked problem", meaning it's multifactorial and all those factors are interconnected, so they cannot be functionally separated, but must be considered together. That makes it hard, but it doesn't mean we don't actually have proof. We do. Multiple ways. We can't project with precise confidence exactly what the temperature will be in 50 years, but NASA can't tell with precise certainty whether the probes they're sending out will "make it", or if they might collide with unforeseen debris, or be pushed off course by some unexpected factor, and so forth. They keep getting better at those, but again, as I mentioned in a prior post, scientists are not omniscient gods, and don't know everything, and that isn't an argument against science.

Or maybe it just means I have a very high standard for what I take to be scientific "proof". Note that scientific proof, on the level of that needed to call something definitely true in science, is not and should not be needed to drive a policy response.

No, the standard you're using is completely unscientific. You don't get to determine what makes up "scientific proof". Scientists do. And they have. And it's proven. Disagreeing with that just makes you wrong.

[Pterodactylus]

But my favorite left wing author said it's a "proven science"

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways osmeric is correct. Anthropogenic warming is evident. But to say it is proven you have to be able to make exact mathematical predictions with 100% consistency (or account for all anomalies).

Laughable. The question is are humans driving climate change, that is proven without a doubt. How exactly that will play out is what the climate community is trying to figure out, and we will NEVER be able to say with 100% certainty what the exact temperature will be at every single place on earth going forward. We will have some pretty good estimates, but that is the best we will ever be able to do and that's fine - somehow, that's the way science works.

I mean, nobody denies plate tectonics, but there is not a chance in hell I will be able to tell you exactly where north America will be relative to it's current position in say, 500 million years. The constraints you try to impose above to be "proven science" is absolute bullshit and you know it.

[Lava Bucket]

Except the magnitude of those changes are blown out of proportion by using relative units as opposed to absolute units.

If the "normal" mean temperature is 15C
And the temperature anomaly in a particular year is half a degree... One might look at it and say "OMG THE TEMPERATURE IS UP 3.333%"

But in reality, thermal energy is in direct proportion to temperature and you have to use absolute temperature, otherwise you'll quickly find that when the temperature drops below zero energy becomes negative, and all you need for faster than light travel is ice cubes.
You're talking a change from 288.15K to 288.65K

A change in energy of less than 1/5th of a percent. Brace yourselves because the next Hurricane Katrina is going to be 1.0017 times as devastating.
[snip].

Making a very small change in the average temperature of 1.32 billion trillion liters of water can have dramatic results, especially when you consider that water has a very high heat capacity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity). What this all means is that even a change of 0.6°C in average ocean temperature can result in the storage and release of phenomenal amounts of energy

Think of it this way. If you put one drop of boiling water on your hand, you probably wouldn't even be burned. If you dumped an entire kettle of boiling water on your hand, you would be severely burned. The amount and temperature of the water must be considered in order to assess the impact it will have.

[Garnier Fructis]

Except the magnitude of those changes are blown out of proportion by using relative units as opposed to absolute units.

If the "normal" mean temperature is 15C
And the temperature anomaly in a particular year is half a degree... One might look at it and say "OMG THE TEMPERATURE IS UP 3.333%"

But in reality, thermal energy is in direct proportion to temperature and you have to use absolute temperature, otherwise you'll quickly find that when the temperature drops below zero energy becomes negative, and all you need for faster than light travel is ice cubes.
You're talking a change from 288.15K to 288.65K

A change in energy of less than 1/5th of a percent. Brace yourselves because the next Hurricane Katrina is going to be 1.0017 times as devastating.

I don't understand how you can complain about using relative units and then use it yourself to declare that a hurricane will be 1.0017 times as devastating. You've also failed to recognize that the total thermal energy depends on the number of particles. Considering that the number of particles in question is an utterly massive amount, a change in energy of 1/5th of a percent can translate into a large absolute increase in energy. It only seems small because you're using relative units. Which is ironic.

Not to mention the actual increase in temperature has become highly disjointed from what would be expected with how high the atmospheric CO2 has gotten now. Which means anthropogenic warming is currently acting against a huge natural cooling trend.

The more alarming question is how much longer anthropogenic warming will win this battle. Because in case you haven't noticed, most of the worlds crops are in areas that would be rendered worthless by a moderate reglaciation leaving all of the viable agricultural space in areas that are highly contested, thereby marking the end of civilization as we know it.

No, we're not headed into a new ice age. The temperature is not "highly disjointed" unless you ignore the spread in climate models.

I don't think human impact on climate is proven. Climate and models are very complex; the models still have much empiricism in them. Trying to depict climate science as being on a level of certainty like gravity or electromagnetism is not honest.

However, I think the evidence is more than good enough to drive government policy. This is not criminal law where a case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before action is taken.

It would be very curious from a physical and chemical standpoint if we didn't have an impact on the climate. The greenhouse effect is beyond doubt. For the climate models to be this wrong would mean that there's some natural driver that curiously didn't have an effect until now, and that there's some huge natural sink for carbon that we don't know about. Both of which are pretty dubious when models can explain what we see with human impact, which does not need to posit new, unidentified mechanics to work.

Anyways osmeric is correct. Anthropogenic warming is evident. But to say it is proven you have to be able to make exact mathematical predictions with 100% consistency (or account for all anomalies).

So until you can say "I have calculated that the mean temperature anomaly for 2017 will be 0.6C" and be right you have a hypothesis... not a theory.

That is how science works for all things.

Are hypotheses often true? Yes. But using strong language like proof when you don't actually technically have it in order to create hysteria is just bad science. It's not doing environmentalism any favors either.

This level of argumentation just downgraded the whole of statistical mechanics to a hypothesis. Glad to know physics isn't science.

[Annoying]

Except the magnitude of those changes are blown out of proportion by using relative units as opposed to absolute units.

If the "normal" mean temperature is 15C
And the temperature anomaly in a particular year is half a degree... One might look at it and say "OMG THE TEMPERATURE IS UP 3.333%"

But in reality, thermal energy is in direct proportion to temperature and you have to use absolute temperature, otherwise you'll quickly find that when the temperature drops below zero energy becomes negative, and all you need for faster than light travel is ice cubes.
You're talking a change from 288.15K to 288.65K

A change in energy of less than 1/5th of a percent. Brace yourselves because the next Hurricane Katrina is going to be 1.0017 times as devastating.

Not to mention the actual increase in temperature has become highly disjointed from what would be expected with how high the atmospheric CO2 has gotten now. Which means anthropogenic warming is currently acting against a huge natural cooling trend.

The more alarming question is how much longer anthropogenic warming will win this battle. Because in case you haven't noticed, most of the worlds crops are in areas that would be rendered worthless by a moderate reglaciation leaving all of the viable agricultural space in areas that are highly contested, thereby marking the end of civilization as we know it.

Did... did you quote the wrong post? Because I certainly wouldn't deny any of that. I do thermodynamics for a living, and nothing I said had anything to do with the data and how it's presented, just with the habitual misuse of the word "theory" as some sort of catchphrase for "not proven".

[Adam Jensen]

I can prove man made climate change 100%. It was hot in my house today. I turned the A/C on. My house went from 72% to 69%. Bam. Man made climate change. The only solution brought to you by most liberal ideology is to kill jobs. get rid of affordable energy. Abolish the middle class.

I didn't realize your house was global.

[Annoying]

I didn't realize your house was global.

"Here's a snowball in congress". Sheesh.