Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

THE thread for climate skeptics.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • THE thread for climate skeptics.

    This thread is an invitation to all people skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. If you have questions about climate change, or you have alternative theories, then this is the place to voice them.

    What's your best argument against climate change?

  • #2
    I am agnostic to the anthropogenic issue, but it has sure been getting warmer here in Alaska over the past decade or so.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

    Comment


    • #3
      I have a question: How much of climate change is driven by changes in the Sun's output?
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        I have a question: How much of climate change is driven by changes in the Sun's output?
        This is a fairly specific effect that can be and has been measure in the cycles of the effects of the sun's output. Related to sun cycles is the more relevant is the measurable cycles of the natural impact of green house gases (CO2) over geologic time on climate, which may be the result of several factors. The recent jump in green house gases since ~1780 far exceeded the natural cyclic effects of the level of green house gases mostly CO2.

        The best records of the geologic history of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the ice cores in the arctic and antarctic. These cores represent a very accurate record up to the present. They also are a good record of the influence of other chemicals and particles associated with human activity from ~1780 including the more recent radioactive particles and atoms in our atmosphere.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-11-2016, 09:10 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          I have a question: How much of climate change is driven by changes in the Sun's output?
          From the seventies forward the sun's irradiance has actually been dropping in intensity very slightly. This is a comparison from the NASA Global Land/Ocean Temperature Index, with the Annual Total Solar Irradiance. As you can see there's no correlation between the temperature increase from that seventies which (according to the standard climate models) is caused by man-made CO2 activity.

          Last edited by Leonhard; 09-11-2016, 09:16 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
            I have a question: How much of climate change is driven by changes in the Sun's output?
            Climate is never just one factor - it's a sum of given forces and feed-backs. Climate is effected by clouds, water vapor, atmospheric composition, solar forces, the Earths albedo, and man-made changes.



            Natural forces continue to influence the Earths climate today. However, these natural changes alone can not explain the magnitude of the recent warming in the past hundred years. We know that the change is man made (anthropogenic) due to the fact that historically greenhouse gases (GHG) have both driven and followed the Earths climate cycles.





            But it's the cooling in the stratosphere and continued warming in the troposphere (where we live) that IMHO, confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Don't underestimate the effects of termite farts either!

              I am a skeptic of AGW but recognize that there has been a slight warming (or so I've been told over and over). But I'm convinced that the climate cycles and this current warming is natural and we'll head into a cooling in the not too distant future.

              Climate Change - as is always true AGW - no
              Faith is not what we fall back to when reason isn't available. It's the conviction of what we have reason to believe. Greg Koukl

              The loss of objectivity in moral thought does not lead to liberation. It leads to oppression. Secular ideologies preach liberty, but they practice tyranny. — Nancy Pearcey

              Comment


              • #8
                In the Seventies we were told we'd all freeze. Then the planet was heating up. Now climate is changing - which seems the silliest observation of all. Warmest years on a 150+ year record isn't that impressive. A ton of extrapolation to prove that the climate is doing what it always does - changing.

                Now, to be fair, it could be a legitimate trend - I haven't the expertise to pull all the data apart. I'll certainly grant that real experts do indeed think something is happening. What I am unwilling to concede is that we should do a massive rewrite of public policy on this basis. For one, I haven't seen anything compelling that says we can come back from whatever brink we might be on. For another, China alone will undermine anything the US does - the 'eek, the sky is falling' thing won't work as a good environmental argument for developing countries (there are much better ones that don't involve massively reworking every nation's policies) or it would have by now. And the thing that makes me actually skeptical of the whole thing is the 'climate change/global warming deniers' battle cry. Frankly, it reeks of pretension and deceit.

                The science is interwoven with the politics - that bed was made when Al Gore became spokesman. While the science is difficult for me to personally tackle, the politics aren't - and this thing stinks like a dead skunk. The green side of the left is having a field day - climate change ever so conveniently gives them the excuse for forcing the planet to buy every sacred cow they want: ending fossil fuels, ending anything remotely like deforestation, ending any economic advancement that comes with an environmental expense (mud puddles classified as wet lands), et al. Any and all opposition is demonized (one of the surest signs that there is something wrong in Denmark - borrowing from Hamlet, not referring to our favorite Dane). Money is diverted all over the place and often irrationally (yeah, international seminars are a bad idea when everyone has to blow their 'carbon footprint' out of the water to get there - don't you guys know how to Skype?). And the greatest lie of all - the science is 'settled' (like 'settled' law, this is tommyrot - it may be solid, which would make for a valid, good case, but the argument of 'settled' screams 'don't look behind the curtain!'). Yeah, eggs were bad for your heart - that science was 'settled' for thirty years - until it was proven not to be true.

                People I respect (like Leo) think there's something to this climate change business so I will listen to the evidence. But that includes all the evidence at hand - and the politics are part of the evidence. The egg industry was anything but happy when their product took the blame for millions of heart attacks but the scientific evidence at that time seemed sound. The political feathers ruffled but none of the 'you're all egg deniers' nonsense - specifically because the science could bear scrutiny (which doesn't seem to have made it right... ). But the opposite is happening with climate change - which makes it far more important that the science bear intense scrutiny. In the early phases, that failed pretty massively. The unwillingness to have the science criticized leaves room to question if it really can bear the scrutiny it should. I have my doubts due to the politics - but will grant that it should have a good hearing based on the fact that there are respectable scientists that do think the science can take the heat.

                It's fair to ask why I think politics should be evidence in this case. The answer is simple - all science is based on human observation, experimentation and REPORTING. How those scientists/supporters act politically is indeed evidence of what they are thinking away from the cameras about what they are presenting. Poli Sci might not be a 'hard science' (unless you are trying to do survey research) but it does tell us something about human nature in aggregate - and ultimately, whether or not we can trust the reporters is what will determine public policy. So far, it doesn't look good to me.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  In the Seventies we were told we'd all freeze. Then the planet was heating up. Now climate is changing - which seems the silliest observation of all. Warmest years on a 150+ year record isn't that impressive. A ton of extrapolation to prove that the climate is doing what it always does - changing.

                  Now, to be fair, it could be a legitimate trend - I haven't the expertise to pull all the data apart. I'll certainly grant that real experts do indeed think something is happening. What I am unwilling to concede is that we should do a massive rewrite of public policy on this basis. For one, I haven't seen anything compelling that says we can come back from whatever brink we might be on. For another, China alone will undermine anything the US does - the 'eek, the sky is falling' thing won't work as a good environmental argument for developing countries (there are much better ones that don't involve massively reworking every nation's policies) or it would have by now. And the thing that makes me actually skeptical of the whole thing is the 'climate change/global warming deniers' battle cry. Frankly, it reeks of pretension and deceit.

                  The science is interwoven with the politics - that bed was made when Al Gore became spokesman. While the science is difficult for me to personally tackle, the politics aren't - and this thing stinks like a dead skunk. The green side of the left is having a field day - climate change ever so conveniently gives them the excuse for forcing the planet to buy every sacred cow they want: ending fossil fuels, ending anything remotely like deforestation, ending any economic advancement that comes with an environmental expense (mud puddles classified as wet lands), et al. Any and all opposition is demonized (one of the surest signs that there is something wrong in Denmark - borrowing from Hamlet, not referring to our favorite Dane). Money is diverted all over the place and often irrationally (yeah, international seminars are a bad idea when everyone has to blow their 'carbon footprint' out of the water to get there - don't you guys know how to Skype?). And the greatest lie of all - the science is 'settled' (like 'settled' law, this is tommyrot - it may be solid, which would make for a valid, good case, but the argument of 'settled' screams 'don't look behind the curtain!'). Yeah, eggs were bad for your heart - that science was 'settled' for thirty years - until it was proven not to be true.

                  People I respect (like Leo) think there's something to this climate change business so I will listen to the evidence. But that includes all the evidence at hand - and the politics are part of the evidence. The egg industry was anything but happy when their product took the blame for millions of heart attacks but the scientific evidence at that time seemed sound. The political feathers ruffled but none of the 'you're all egg deniers' nonsense - specifically because the science could bear scrutiny (which doesn't seem to have made it right... ). But the opposite is happening with climate change - which makes it far more important that the science bear intense scrutiny. In the early phases, that failed pretty massively. The unwillingness to have the science criticized leaves room to question if it really can bear the scrutiny it should. I have my doubts due to the politics - but will grant that it should have a good hearing based on the fact that there are respectable scientists that do think the science can take the heat.

                  It's fair to ask why I think politics should be evidence in this case. The answer is simple - all science is based on human observation, experimentation and REPORTING. How those scientists/supporters act politically is indeed evidence of what they are thinking away from the cameras about what they are presenting. Poli Sci might not be a 'hard science' (unless you are trying to do survey research) but it does tell us something about human nature in aggregate - and ultimately, whether or not we can trust the reporters is what will determine public policy. So far, it doesn't look good to me.
                  I am not a skeptic, but you raise many good points here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thank you.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why don't we just plant more trees, like a lot if trees.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Papa Zoom View Post
                        Don't underestimate the effects of termite farts either!

                        I am a skeptic of AGW but recognize that there has been a slight warming (or so I've been told over and over). But I'm convinced that the climate cycles and this current warming is natural and we'll head into a cooling in the not too distant future.

                        Climate Change - as is always true AGW - no
                        Actually, there may be a momentary slight apparent cooler years during La Nina periods, and we are entering one, but the long term climate change will more than likely follow the rise in greenhouse gases.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Why don't we just plant more trees, like a lot if trees.
                          Maybe if we moved off the planet earth, plant trees, and let it return to a natural vegetative and environmental state it would solve the problem over time.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-11-2016, 04:45 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            In the Seventies we were told we'd all freeze.
                            No, only a few scientists projected this - the rest actually predicted a warming trend.

                            1970s_papers.gif
                            Then the planet was heating up. Now climate is changing - which seems the silliest observation of all. Warmest years on a 150+ year record isn't that impressive. A ton of extrapolation to prove that the climate is doing what it always does - changing.
                            The trend goes back much further than that. Proxy data indicates this is the warmest century in the past two millennium. Using tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, and other methods, we can use the chemical composition to read temperatures, and get a sense of scale.


                            Now, to be fair, it could be a legitimate trend - I haven't the expertise to pull all the data apart. I'll certainly grant that real experts do indeed think something is happening. What I am unwilling to concede is that we should do a massive rewrite of public policy on this basis. For one, I haven't seen anything compelling that says we can come back from whatever brink we might be on. For another, China alone will undermine anything the US does - the 'eek, the sky is falling' thing won't work as a good environmental argument for developing countries (there are much better ones that don't involve massively reworking every nation's policies) or it would have by now. And the thing that makes me actually skeptical of the whole thing is the 'climate change/global warming deniers' battle cry. Frankly, it reeks of pretension and deceit.
                            What is your evidence of these things besides simply not liking the politics? It sounds like from this that nothing will ever convince you.

                            The science is interwoven with the politics - that bed was made when Al Gore became spokesman.
                            I think you're using that as an excuse to dismiss the evidence, and are using Al Gore as an emotional red-herring.

                            While the science is difficult for me to personally tackle, the politics aren't - and this thing stinks like a dead skunk. The green side of the left is having a field day - climate change ever so conveniently gives them the excuse for forcing the planet to buy every sacred cow they want: ending fossil fuels, ending anything remotely like deforestation, ending any economic advancement that comes with an environmental expense (mud puddles classified as wet lands), et al. Any and all opposition is demonized (one of the surest signs that there is something wrong in Denmark - borrowing from Hamlet, not referring to our favorite Dane).
                            Well I feel the same about the politics of the right-wing. It seems no matter how many experiments we do, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies we have, nothing will change. Because of the rights love affair with free-enterprise they will simply believe what they want.

                            People I respect (like Leo) think there's something to this climate change business so I will listen to the evidence. But that includes all the evidence at hand - and the politics are part of the evidence.
                            No, no, the science is completely outside of the politics. Scientists couldn't care less about dog and pony shows, and any that have other motives are discovered. You don't convince every society and academy in the world without some damn good evidence. The skeptics on the other hand, have done nothing but piss and moan, and use outdated science that many of them know well enough not to use - thus being dishonest.

                            The egg industry was anything but happy when their product took the blame for millions of heart attacks but the scientific evidence at that time seemed sound. The political feathers ruffled but none of the 'you're all egg deniers' nonsense - specifically because the science could bear scrutiny (which doesn't seem to have made it right... ). But the opposite is happening with climate change - which makes it far more important that the science bear intense scrutiny.
                            And just who is in charge of this "scrutiny"? Most of the people skeptical don't seem to understand the science involved enough to take such a role; unless you just want this to become entirely politics.
                            In the early phases, that failed pretty massively. The unwillingness to have the science criticized leaves room to question if it really can bear the scrutiny it should. I have my doubts due to the politics - but will grant that it should have a good hearing based on the fact that there are respectable scientists that do think the science can take the heat.
                            The science can take the heat, it has taken the heat - many time over, and now it is time for people to start acting responsible. Emotions have no place in this discussion.

                            It's fair to ask why I think politics should be evidence in this case. The answer is simple - all science is based on human observation, experimentation and REPORTING. How those scientists/supporters act politically is indeed evidence of what they are thinking away from the cameras about what they are presenting. Poli Sci might not be a 'hard science' (unless you are trying to do survey research) but it does tell us something about human nature in aggregate - and ultimately, whether or not we can trust the reporters is what will determine public policy. So far, it doesn't look good to me.
                            Science is science. When it comes to a natural science like this, the methodology involved is reliable. Trying to lump the results in with political ideals is just absurd, and it's just a convenient excuse to ignore results we don't like - please don't do that!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm not particularly skeptical, but maybe someone can answer my question:

                              Is it possible to determine how much of this is humans accelerating and exacerbating a natural cycle?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              136 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X