IPCC Climate Change Report........ (page 12)

besty

the recent disconfirmatory data

Assuming you mean the single datapoint of surface temperatures within a cherrypicked timeframe not rising fast enough in a straight line of your choice, what do you make of all the confirmatory datapoints?

air temperature over land

sea-surface temperature

air temperature over oceans

sea level

ocean heat

humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface.

declining Arctic sea ice

retreating glaciers

spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere

Do you need me to provide recent references for each of these which indicate human activity is having a detrimental effect on observable evidence?

Or are you ready to accept the science?

adamah

Besty said-

Assuming you mean the single datapoint of surface temperatures within a cherrypicked timeframe not rising fast enough in a straight line of your choice, what do you make of all the confirmatory datapoints?

air temperature over land

sea-surface temperature

air temperature over oceans

sea level

ocean heat

humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface.

declining Arctic sea ice

retreating glaciers

spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere

Well, sure, you MAY have all of that, but what you DON'T have is a picture of palm trees with snow on them!

Checkmate!

Adam

slimboyfat

What would "accepting the science" look like? I've already said that I think global warming is more likely true than not, I just have growing reservations. (In common with most people, so it seems)

In an absolute sense however I think all scientific representations of reality are culturally contingent and only as good as they are useful. Earlier you asked how many scientific dogmas with 97% support have fallen into disfavour in recent times. It depends on your theory of knowledge, but in an essential sense I believe that ALL scientific theories ultimately suffer this fate. Every single one, because I believe in a Popperian view of scientific progress rather than a scientific realist position.

besty

I think global warming is more likely true than not, I just have growing reservations

Its just bizarre to me that your thought process is moving in the opposite direction to science which was settled a long time back, as far as the 1970's, on the net effect of adding signiifcantly more CO2 to the system.

For a traditionally conservative group (scientists) to persuade almost every government on the planet to sign off on a document that agrees with 95% confidence in their assessment is quite an achievement.

JeffT

sammies: I think asking what should be done will only get the thread more off-topic as it tend to drive the tin-foil crowd out of their caves; perhaps start a new thread with that question?

I disagree. This argument would improve considerably ( I hope) if we moved toward "If we control pollution thruogh reasonable means and encourage low populatin growth, life for all of us will improve" and away from "if we don't outlaw automobiles and make people ride bicycles tomorrow we're all gonna die."

besty

if we don't outlaw automobiles and make people ride bicycles tomorrow we're all gonna die.

I actually haven't seen an extreme view like that as part of any policy document. It would be great to have a reasonable exchange of views on policy but step 1 is accepting there is an issue.

Simon

Americans are always so quick to believe conspiracy theories with zero evidence and also quick to dismiss science with masses of evidence.

I think religion is responsible ... it addles the brain.

Try wearing a tin-foil hat, the NSA mind-rays won't get you then and you'll be able to think clearly.

DJS

Simon,

Ditto. I have avoided these discussions because of (what I believe to be irrationally) entrenched positions on the side of the denialists. I believe there was a legitimate debate for a while based on the imperfect modeling and that both sides were being less than honest about their 'facts.' But I believe that ship has sailed and it is difficult for me to believe that the consensus of an international group of scientists that humans are contriburing to climate change is a 95% likelihood is a conspiracy or bad science.

When I taught this subject, my primary focus (since the data was much less certain) was on the many other reasons to begin changing our focus on pertoleum and carbon based fuels. Such as pollution, the enviornemnt (i.e., BP oil spill, strip mining, polluted waters), the eonomy (oil price spikes can and have sent us into recession), international security (oil has caused many wars and must unrest - the sooner we can make this go away the better our planet will be) and national security (the U.S., for example, could forge a very different global strategy absent oil).

There are many compelling reasons to move away from an oil based economy that have nothing to do with climate change.

Glander

" There are many compelling reasons to move away from an oil based economy that have nothing to do with climate change."

like what?

adamah

Glanders said-

"like what?"

Have you not checked the price at the pump lately?

Adam

IPCC Climate Change Report........

Share this