Natural Climate Change - Can someone debunk this?

[JohnS]

 

 

Just wondering what more informed minds than mine think about this theory that humans aren't changing the planet.

 

Thanks!

 

[iNow]

Just wondering what more informed minds than mine think about this theory that humans aren't changing the planet.

They're sadly mistaken.

[overtone]

It's a bizarre argument.

 

Let's try it with Chernobyl: it's a fact that radioactivity is a natural part of the environment, that natural fission meltdowns have occured on earth over the ages, that fission reactions are even now providing the heat that helps power the valuable crustal phenomena and magnetic field and so forth we all depend on, that the radioactivity level on the planet's surface has been higher in the past than it is now, that radioactivity is important in critical matters such as evolutionary diversification, that the radioactivity put out by Chernobyl was a small fraction of the total natural radioactivity of the planet, and so forth.

 

So do we conclude that Chernobyl was no big deal, and we shouldn't worry about such things?

[studiot]

 

Natural Climate Change - Can someone debunk this?

Just wondering what more informed minds than mine think about this theory that humans aren't changing the planet.

 

Thanks!

 

What connection are you making between the title of this thread and the question you seem to have asked at the end?

 

Are you going to offer any reason why natural and human generated effects should be mutually exclusive?

[swansont]

So do you find it unusual that when the glaciers melted at the end of the ice age that the sea levels rose? There was massive glaciation, and then they melted. What's happening now is not that situation, so why is a comparison valid?

 

Even if something happens "naturally" there is a mechanism involved that we can study. Over the course of thousands of years the earth is affect by variations in its inclination and eccentricity, and precession. What we're seeing today is not a result of that. If you're not including the mechanism, they you aren't making any sort of argument. Without that detail, the claim of "it happened naturally in the past" is a red herring.

[puppypower]

The problem manmade global warming faces, based on the philosophy of science, is manmade global warming even if true, is a unique event that has no precedent in science or history. There is no second data point, to draw a straight line, to eliminate nonscientific conclusions. With one point, you can draw any curve you like and it will go through that one point. Without a second point you don't really know if you have the right angle.This is why few predictions have panned out and why global warming had to be rebranded as climate change. Doom and gloom sells but is this the proper curve angle?

 

Climate change is a way to blame anything and everything on climate change, while not having to explain anything. If it rains, this is due to climate change and if it does not rain this is due to climate change. This covers all angles with one point, but in a sneaky way.

 

There was a character, by a comedian call Flip Wilson, whose line was, "the devil made me do it". No matter what happened to get a laugh, in every skit the character would say, "the devil made me do it". The character did not have to explain anything and was able to get away with everything for a laugh. Climate change cart blanche approach appears to be based on that Flip Wilson character. In every skit on the news, no matter what happens, climate change made me do it, without ever having to explain or reason why.

 

To me at least natural history data has more than one point for most things and does not use to rely on the "devil made me do it" approach to address things, because two or more data points will also gives a better curve.

Edited October 1, 2015 by puppypower

[Strange]

Just wondering what more informed minds than mine think about this theory that humans aren't changing the planet.

 

As you provide you text in the form of graphics it is too difficult to respond to your claims.

 

Also, you provide no sources for your data.

[swansont]

The problem manmade global warming faces, based on the philosophy of science, is manmade global warming even if true, is a unique event that has no precedent in science or history. There is no second data point, to draw a straight line, to eliminate nonscientific conclusions. With one point, you can draw any curve you like and it will go through that one point. Without a second point you don't really know if you have the right angle.This is why few predictions have panned out and why global warming had to be rebranded as climate change. Doom and gloom sells but is this the proper curve angle?

Which is, of course a complete mischaracterization of the science. BS sells, if it's what people want to hear it (which is why some people might credulously agree to what you've stated), but if you are going to discuss the science, then you need to, you know, discuss the science.

 

It's like saying that people are unique (which is true) therefore we can't study people because there is nothing to compare them to. Which is obviously bunk, just like your claim. There are lots of things about people, and the mechanisms of climate change, that are not unique. We can model these behaviors and mechanisms.

 

As far as the "few predictions have panned out", that's another bald assertion. Back it up or retract it.

 

Rebranding is because action is required, which makes this a political issue. But that's separate from the science (and this is not posted in the politics section). Global warming is happening whether or not it fits with your ideology or whether you believe it or not.

 

Climate change is a way to blame anything and everything on climate change, while not having to explain anything. If it rains, this is due to climate change and if it does not rain this is due to climate change. This covers all angles with one point, but in a sneaky way.

Another load of BS, unsupported by any facts.

 

There was a character, by a comedian call Flip Wilson, whose line was, "the devil made me do it". No matter what happened to get a laugh, in every skit the character would say, "the devil made me do it". The character did not have to explain anything and was able to get away with everything for a laugh. Climate change cart blanche approach appears to be based on that Flip Wilson character. In every skit on the news, no matter what happens, climate change made me do it, without ever having to explain or reason why.

 

To me at least natural history data has more than one point for most things and does not use to rely on the "devil made me do it" approach to address things, because two or more data points will also gives a better curve.

To say "without ever having to explain or reason why" is so false it smacks of willful ignorance, if not out-and-out deception. Ignorance can be fixed, but it requires effort on your part to go out and learn the science.

[JohnS]

 

What connection are you making between the title of this thread and the question you seem to have asked at the end?

 

Are you going to offer any reason why natural and human generated effects should be mutually exclusive?

 

The connection I'm attempting to show is how sea level/temperature and CO2 is constantly changing -- naturally (hence the title, Natural Climate Change) instead of assuming it's all human-made because we're looking at unreasonably short timelines (hundreds of years) with only fractional increase in CO2, a gas which plants thrive on and convert to oxygen.

 

Effects aren't mutually exclusive but seeing the a x10 factor in fluctuations during the Mesozoic makes me think we're thinking too small. We are adding CO2, but historically, it's nothing like the amount of CO2 Earth has seen in the past. The shorter the timeline, the scarier the change seems which is annoying because when scientists are talking about Earth, they ought to pull large samples for sense of perspective.

 

The data is fine, what we're missing is a sense of context.

 

 

 

 

So do you find it unusual that when the glaciers melted at the end of the ice age that the sea levels rose? There was massive glaciation, and then they melted. Even if something happens "naturally" there is a mechanism involved that we can study. What's happening now is not that situation, so why is a comparison valid?

 

No, glaciers melt and seas rise.

 

I totally agree with your last statement. My point is that's not happening; scientists aren't publishing books and articles about climate change with any sense of context -- purposefully focusing only on the past 200 years without a frame of reference (pre-human data) make our tepid CO2 contribution unprecidented and that's sloppy and, frankly, misleading.

With one point, you can draw any curve you like and it will go through that one point. Without a second point you don't really know if you have the right angle.

 

This is the crux of my point and better said.

 

Scientists have had the second and third points for decades. They've had them since the Vail and Haq sea-level studies of the 1970s and 80s whose data created the charts I quoted. But you will never see them use it to give their own findings a sense of perspective. That's my point.

[pwagen]

My point is that's not happening; scientists aren't publishing books and articles about climate change with any sense of context -- purposefully focusing only on the past 200 years without a frame of reference (pre-human data) make our tepid CO2 contribution unprecidented and that's sloppy and, frankly, misleading.

Scientists, however, do have access to, and use, data from before mankind. And we do know why the climate has changed in the past, and how it relates to climate change and greenhouse gases today. Purposefully ignoring this can be seen as sloppy and, frankly, misleading.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

[swansont]

 

No, glaciers melt and seas rise.

 

I totally agree with your last statement. My point is that's not happening; scientists aren't publishing books and articles about climate change with any sense of context -- purposefully focusing only on the past 200 years without a frame of reference (pre-human data) make our tepid CO2 contribution unprecidented and that's sloppy and, frankly, misleading.

 

Where it's "missing", it's irrelevant, and therefore unnecessary. We have an understanding of why the prehistoric events happened and those conditions are not the current situation. Our warming is not happening because of orbital parameters changing. When you publish a journal article, you generally aren't going to waste space discussing what your research isn't covering. The target audience is going to understand that anyway.

[overtone]

 

 

The data is fine, what we're missing is a sense of context.

Everywhere I look in this climate change matter I see graphs and charts of CO2 and temperatures and sea level and so forth going back thousands, millions, even billions of years sometimes.

 

It's in encyclopedias, on Wikipedia, in the docs on TV, in all the articles and stuff. Here's an example of what's all over the intertubes:

 

Where are you getting the notion that this context is missing?

[JohnS]

Everywhere I look in this climate change matter I see graphs and charts of CO2 and temperatures and sea level and so forth going back thousands, millions, even billions of years sometimes.

 

It's in encyclopedias, on Wikipedia, in the docs on TV, in all the articles and stuff. Here's an example of what's all over the intertubes:

 

Where are you getting the notion that this context is missing?

 

 

The chart in your youtube movie is exactly what I'm talking about. "Zooming in" to values between 200 and 400 ppm is deceptive because the CO2 levels appear unprecedented. CO2 was higher in the middle Cenozoic and the Ordovician and there was plenty of ice, no? So I just don't understand how an extra 100 ppm could melt the ice caps today.

 

The context I'm talking about is illustrated in the charts below.

 

 

 

Scientists, however, do have access to, and use, data from before mankind. And we do know why the climate has changed in the past, and how it relates to climate change and greenhouse gases today. Purposefully ignoring this can be seen as sloppy and, frankly, misleading.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

 

 

The first link has a good point about slow vs abrupt change but the abrupt changes it mentions in the Permian, Triassic and mid-Cambrian periods were orders of magnitude bigger than the one degree Celsius change we've had in the past 200 years.

 

Ah! But the second link has the chart showing what I'm looking for:

 

 

This shows a close relationship between temperature and CO2 levels.

 

That's the smoking gun I needed to debunk the theory that rules out natural factors as the cause of our imminent climate change. Thanks, guys.

 

 

[swansont]

 

The chart in your youtube movie is exactly what I'm talking about. "Zooming in" to values between 200 and 400 ppm is deceptive because the CO2 levels appear unprecedented. CO2 was higher in the middle Cenozoic and the Ordovician and there was plenty of ice, no? So I just don't understand how an extra 100 ppm could melt the ice caps today.

 

Because you appear to be assuming that all else is the same, and that's not the case. It's like saying it's deceptive to say that a billionaire is rich in the US because it was trivial to have a trillion dollar bill in Zimbabwe. Also, zooming in shows how rapidly the numbers have changed. That's what's unprecedented with respect to the ice age.

[overtone]

The chart in your youtube movie is exactly what I'm talking about. "Zooming in" to values between 200 and 400 ppm is deceptive because the CO2 levels appear unprecedented. CO2 was higher in the middle Cenozoic and the Ordovician and there was plenty of ice, no? So I just don't understand how an extra 100 ppm could melt the ice caps today.

 

"Youtube movie"?

 

Anyway, here's another, unzoomed, regarding the Cenezoic: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1186.html

 

If you want to understand how the unprecedentedly rapid anthro CO2 boost is melting the ice caps today, follow the research papers in the matter. It's a complex business, with lots of factors and feedbacks, (none of the recent findings are reassuring).

 

If you want an explanation for how polar temperatures might have remained lower than they are headed now during past regimes of higher CO2 than we are achieving now, this is also a matter of research, and the matter is less mysterious than it was - lower solar flux is one factor, certain feedbacks from soot etc are involved, continental positioning and oceanic circulation certainly made a difference, and recently partial pressure of oxygen has turned up as a significant - perhaps even dominant - factor: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6240/1238 https://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6240/1238.figures-only

 

Have fun investigating - it's a hot field, with lots to check out.

Edited October 3, 2015 by overtone

[puppypower]

Which is, of course a complete mischaracterization of the science. BS sells, if it's what people want to hear it (which is why some people might credulously agree to what you've stated), but if you are going to discuss the science, then you need to, you know, discuss the science.

 

It's like saying that people are unique (which is true) therefore we can't study people because there is nothing to compare them to. Which is obviously bunk, just like your claim. There are lots of things about people, and the mechanisms of climate change, that are not unique. We can model these behaviors and mechanisms.

 

As far as the "few predictions have panned out", that's another bald assertion. Back it up or retract it.

 

Rebranding is because action is required, which makes this a political issue. But that's separate from the science (and this is not posted in the politics section). Global warming is happening whether or not it fits with your ideology or whether you believe it or not.

 

Another load of BS, unsupported by any facts.

 

To say "without ever having to explain or reason why" is so false it smacks of willful ignorance, if not out-and-out deception. Ignorance can be fixed, but it requires effort on your part to go out and learn the science.

 

Even since manmade global warming has been in vogue, most of the predictions have been based on the doom and gloom angle of a curve balancing on one data point. However, few of these predictions have come true, over the past 20-30 years, at the level of the angle of the sale pitch. Al Gore had the polar bears going extinct by now and the ice caps all melted. This sold well to the minions. But what has happened, in hard reality, is more of the same, instead of what was predicted by the doom and gloom angle.

 

Consensus science is using the wrong angle when drawing a curve through its one unique data point. This angle has been chosen because fear sells. If you scare people they will become irrational, which is what you need. If you notice although polar bears did not go extinct, there is no apology for being wrong or any push to change the angle and try a new approach. The doom and gloom angle continues. I am pointing this out because the consensus of pseudo-scientists who are continuing to manipulate using an angle that is not working out in nature, but is designed more for the needs of money and power.

 

Manmade global warming was recently rebranded, like the "new Coke", into climate change. This new pitch allows any angle, including doom and gloom, to be justified. If the polar bears go extinct this is due to climate change, but if they don't this is due to climate change. If the polar caps melt this is due to climate change, but if their don't this is due to climate change.

 

Go back and look at all the doom and gloom predictions made since the doom and gloom angle was chosen of this unique event. Any real science would have tried a new angle, as the data collects and does not pan out, and not just double down with the same old scare ingle. This is all about sales pitch to the ignorant.

 

If I had predicted, 20 years ago, that the earth has warmed slightly, but little major change will occur, this angle would have been much closer to the hard data. This is a better angle, but it does not sell as well in terms of expanding the global warming industry.

Edited October 4, 2015 by puppypower

[swansont]

Even since manmade global warming has been in vogue, most of the predictions have been based on the doom and gloom angle of a curve balancing on one data point.

 

 

And what would that one data point be?

 

However, few of these predictions have come true, over the past 20-30 years, at the level of the angle of the sale pitch.

Once again, I will ask you to back this up with citations.

 

Al Gore had the polar bears going extinct by now and the ice caps all melted. This sold well to the minions. But what has happened, in hard reality, is more of the same, instead of what was predicted by the doom and gloom angle.

Al Gore is not a scientist. But I'm curious, just in the spirit of rigor: provide a citation for these claims. Not someone quoting someone who's paraphrasing something. Where and when did he make these predictions? provide link(s)

 

 

Consensus science is using the wrong angle when drawing a curve through its one unique data point. This angle has been chosen because fear sells. If you scare people they will become irrational, which is what you need. If you notice although polar bears did not go extinct, there is no apology for being wrong or any push to change the angle and try a new approach. The doom and gloom angle continues. I am pointing this out because the consensus of pseudo-scientists who are continuing to manipulate using an angle that is not working out in nature, but is designed more for the needs of money and power.

Awkwardness of the metaphor aside(angle through the data point? WTH does that even mean?), this sounds like you are claiming that predictions are not, in fact, based on science. Can you back that up? More importantly, even if you can, will you?

 

 

Manmade global warming was recently rebranded, like the "new Coke", into climate change.

Partly because simpletons and charlatans alike interpreted this to mean a monotonic increase in temperature everywhere on the planet. Partly because temperature is not the whole story — changes in e.g. precipitation patterns would also occur.

 

If I had predicted, 20 years ago, that the earth has warmed slightly, but little major change will occur, this angle would have been much closer to the hard data. This is a better angle, but it does not sell as well in terms of expanding the global warming industry.

Since you've presented no hard data, I'm just going to flat-out not believe this. Given your pattern, you lose benefit of the doubt. You're assumed wrong until you establish you're right, as far as I'm concerned.

[Phi for All]

 

Even since manmade global warming has been in vogue, most of the predictions have been based on the doom and gloom angle of a curve balancing on one data point. However, few of these predictions have come true, over the past 20-30 years, at the level of the angle of the sale pitch. Al Gore had the polar bears going extinct by now and the ice caps all melted. This sold well to the minions. But what has happened, in hard reality, is more of the same, instead of what was predicted by the doom and gloom angle.

 

Consensus science is using the wrong angle when drawing a curve through its one unique data point. This angle has been chosen because fear sells. If you scare people they will become irrational, which is what you need. If you notice although polar bears did not go extinct, there is no apology for being wrong or any push to change the angle and try a new approach. The doom and gloom angle continues. I am pointing this out because the consensus of pseudo-scientists who are continuing to manipulate using an angle that is not working out in nature, but is designed more for the needs of money and power.

 

Manmade global warming was recently rebranded, like the "new Coke", into climate change. This new pitch allows any angle, including doom and gloom, to be justified. If the polar bears go extinct this is due to climate change, but if they don't this is due to climate change. If the polar caps melt this is due to climate change, but if their don't this is due to climate change.

 

Go back and look at all the doom and gloom predictions made since the doom and gloom angle was chosen of this unique event. Any real science would have tried a new angle, as the data collects and does not pan out, and not just double down with the same old scare ingle. This is all about sales pitch to the ignorant.

 

If I had predicted, 20 years ago, that the earth has warmed slightly, but little major change will occur, this angle would have been much closer to the hard data. This is a better angle, but it does not sell as well in terms of expanding the global warming industry.

 

!

Moderator Note

puppypower, you've made claims that others have refuted with supportive evidence, without supplying any of your own. To continue repeating the claims without such support is preaching/soapboxing, and is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. Please take the time to address counterclaims, and provide links supporting your own claims. Just making them doesn't make them true. Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

 

If you object to this modnote, report it but don't talk off-topic about it here.

[overtone]

 

 

Manmade global warming was recently rebranded, like the "new Coke", into climate change.

Partly because simpletons and charlatans alike interpreted this to mean a monotonic increase in temperature everywhere on the planet. Partly because temperature is not the whole story — changes in e.g. precipitation patterns would also occur.

Also, partly because "climate change" has always been a common, maybe even the most common, term in the scientific discussion. And partly - maybe even largely - because Frank Luntz advocated for the term in all Republican media appearances, which means the framing of essentially all public media discussion in the US. http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Scroll down to the third or fourth page, in the recommendations for terms. That's where "global warming" vanished from the public ear, replaced by accusations that it had been abandoned for coverup and PR purposes by the exact people who had not abandoned it for coverup and PR purposes.

[JohnS]

I started this topic and the chart showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature/sea level were the debunks I was looking for. Also pwagen's point about human influence being "abrupt" (in geologic time) resonates with me.

 

I'm not a scientist but I wanted to understand climate change but was thoroughly impressed with what I found. I read the IPCC 2015 report and there wasn't any pre-industrial data for context which is why I started this thread. As an instrument of communication it was so poorly written (no context) I thought I smelled a rat. I mean, with $2.5B (yearly) of tax money going into climate change, you couldn't blame me for suspecting that people were willing to omit controvertible data to keep their job. That's me being cynical.

 

Does anyone know if there is something that's considered "canon" for climate change? I'm looking for something comprehensive, written for the laity and regarded by scientists as the "Harvard Law Review" or climate change. What also makes it difficult is people get so bent out of shape over this over-politicized topic, so non-scientists have to sift through all tons of quackery to find the real data.

 

Again, thanks, gang for the pointers.

Edited October 5, 2015 by JohnS

[iNow]

Does anyone know if there is something that's considered "canon" for climate change? I'm looking for something comprehensive, written for the laity and regarded by scientists as the "Harvard Law Review" or climate change. What also makes it difficult is people get so bent out of shape over this over-politicized topic, so non-scientists have to sift through all tons of quackery to find the real data.

I wouldn't call it "canon" since our knowledge is the result of thousands of studies across research domains, but I like this site for quick reference and information written accessibly (often splitting the same info into 3-tabs; beginner, intermediate, advanced): http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

This is also helpful on history: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

[overtone]

As an instrument of communication it was so poorly written (no context) I thought I smelled a rat. I mean, with $2.5B (yearly) of tax money going into climate change, you couldn't blame me for suspecting that people were willing to omit controvertible data to keep their job. That's me being cynical.

Not cynical. That's you being manipulated.

 

For example: Where did you get the idea that a lot of money going into a publicly funded, nonprofit, multinational area of research would bias published research findings in any particular direction, create conspiracies among hundreds of researchers to conceal facts and publish falsehoods easily discovered, create an agenda in conflict with the self-interest of major researchers and institutions in the field as well as a physical reality that is not going to go away?

 

Figure out where you got that idea from, and never believe anything from that source ever again. It will be wherever you found this bullshit: "$2.5B (yearly) of tax money going into climate change"

 

Think a minute: what does that even mean?

Edited October 5, 2015 by overtone

[JohnS]

If I'm being manipulated, it's coming from the federal government. The White House Climate change expenditures report from 2014 quotes $2.5B, half of it goes to NASA. Before 2014, a total of $77B of fed money went (mostly) to subsidized green technologies, climate adaptation from 2008 to 2013 so $2.5B isn't a lot. Note, none of this money goes to universities whom are funded from state budgets (as opposed to federal). It's adds up to a lot of money.

[Arete]

Note, none of this money goes to universities whom are funded from state budgets (as opposed to federal). It's adds up to a lot of money.

 

Actually this is very untrue. The vast majority of research conducted at universities is done using federal grants (e.g. NSF, NIH, USDA, DOD, etc). Universities themselves fund very little, if any of the research conducted on their campuses.

[overtone]

 

 

If I'm being manipulated, it's coming from the federal government.

You did not get this: : "$2.5B (yearly) of tax money going into climate change" all added up and so forth, from "the Federal government".

 

It's not that the number is a big one, it's that your source for that number and language is manipulating you.