Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

So you believe anything someone says without data and proof (just their word alone) and still refuse to discuss something you brought up yourself and back it up. (this point only on the 1 degree claim)

Refuse to even acknowledge in a previous headline was correct or not, you just had to type one word, yes or no, for your answer, whichever you think is correct. And the reason I asked you is because it is directly related to this latest claim you posted this evening (I. E. A Pattern).

As I said, the media and some of the movement seems to be able to do no wrong, and you think we should not question them, blind faith it is then, instead of reasoned and critical analysis of what they say and report?

Also out for the evening now too

I posted a tweet from a climatologist making a claim, and you want me to defend that claim. No. Why should I? They are literally the expert. If I had a comment to make on it, I would but I don't other than to say, 'Here is what an expert thinks'.

You also are intent on discussing claims relating to Venice and something about RTE, both of which were discussed several weeks ago and which you were involved in discussing. Again, No, Why should I? Because you demand it?

Without any media or activists on this, I would feel improvements would need to be made because I see so much waste in how we use materials and it has long been my view that that is unsustainable. Given the way it has come to the fore in scientific publications and the media in recent years, I see that as confirming my view. What I am posting or quoting as relevant information is from experts on the subject, and you and others seem to take that as blind faith. Maybe it is, but then, I don't go to my Dr and second guess everything he says either. I trust people with respected qualifications and experience.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

I posted a tweet from a climatologist making a claim, and you want me to defend that claim. No. Why should I? They are literally the expert. If I had a comment to make on it, I would but I don't other than to say, 'Here is what an expert thinks'.

You also are intent on discussing claims relating to Venice and something about RTE, both of which were discussed several weeks ago and which you were involved in discussing. Again, No, Why should I? Because you demand it?

Without any media or activists on this, I would feel improvements would need to be made because I see so much waste in how we use materials and it has long been my view that that is unsustainable. Given the way it has come to the fore in scientific publications and the media in recent years, I see that as confirming my view. What I am posting or quoting as relevant information is from experts on the subject, and you and others seem to take that as blind faith. Maybe it is, but then, I don't go to my Dr and second guess everything he says either. I trust people with respected qualifications and experience.

You posted the tweet, and when questions on it you have avoided and used every excuse not to discuss any points related to it.

The Venice and other articles point I raised was directly relation to your post also, as I am discussing the same point about your post and the pattern on reporting of all recent climate events without data or proper analysis.

I think this is quite clear, but again you will avoid a simple question by writing paragraphs instead of a simple answer.
Did you cover this question a few weeks ago when it was discussed? If not, why can I not ask now about it in relation to you post?

I am quite entitled to question the information in your post and ask additional questions as part of any normal discussion (its not demanding, it's discussion) . If you simple refuse to discuss these simple points about you post, then for me it seems you cannot defend, or continue to avoid for some other bizzar reason. We are not here to discuss only the things you want to discuss and the parts you want to discuss.

If someone posted articles, tweets studies about climate change not human rated, from climatologist and experts, they would and have been questioned as, not peer reviewed, the source is not reliable, they are backed by the oil industry etc.

Why can you post without scrutiny?

Again my point is about recent climate events that are automatically attribute to emissions with no data on these recent event to validate that claim. The way these dramatic claims and headlines are made and not backed up and in some cases completely untrue.

So from your post....

Is the 1 deg temperature rise in Australia, solely due to emissions?
Is it backed up by data?
Do you believe there are no other factors that contribute to it?
Is the climatologist being fully factually with this tweet?
Is there a pattern of reporting every climate event now as... look everyone, its the our emissions again directly causing these events? (let's ignore other possible factors completely)

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

Why can you post without scrutiny?

Again my point is about recent climate events that are automatically attribute to emissions with no data on these recent event to validate that claim. The way these dramatic claims and headlines are made and not backed up and in some cases completely untrue.

So from your post....

Is the 1 deg temperature rise in Australia, solely due to emissions?
Is it backed up by data?
Do you believe there are no other factors that contribute to it?
Is the climatologist being fully factually with this tweet?
Is there a pattern of reporting every climate event now as... look everyone, its the our emissions again directly causing these events? (let's ignore other possible factors completely)

So, you have no evidence or supporting argument that the tweet is incorrect, but you expect me to answer these questions. And what if I say the answers are Yes, it is solely due to emissions, Yes it is backed by data. What then? You will ask me on what basis I am making those claims? And if I answer, well, a climate scientist said so we'll be back here again.

What do you think? Do you think she is wrong? On what basis are you making this judgement?

This is actually very interesting because it is indicative of what is happening on twitter in relation to the topic. There are many who are steadfastly going out of their way to cast doubt on what professionals are saying in relation to this matter. I found this interaction particularly enlightening.

https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/1214367143837544448

I'd suggest you click in to the tweet to see the full engagement. What is it that is motivating people to behave as Mr Smith did just to argue that there is no problem?

This is partially why I continue to post on this thread. I think it is a bad idea to leave it to a group of voices who will then clap each other on the back and say 'We're right, there is no problem. Greta is an idiot. Sure no one is disagreeing with us'.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

...

This is partially why I continue to post on this thread. I think it is a bad idea to leave it to a group of voices who will then clap each other on the back and say 'We're right, there is no problem. Greta is an idiot. Sure no one is disagreeing with us'.

Again that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is not one single comment on this thread which states that 'greta is an idiot' or that collectively any 'group' claiming they are 'right'. The only poster saying that is you as far as I can see.

And as Beasty pointed out above people are going to disagree (ie have differering opinions) whether you, I or anyone else decides to post in this thread.

And that's where we are IMHO...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Again that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is not one single comment on this thread which states that 'greta is an idiot' or that collectively any 'group' claiming they are 'right'. The only poster saying that is you as far as I can see.

And as Beasty pointed out above people are going to disagree whether you, I or anyone else decides to post in this thread.



And that's where we are ...

I don't care about people disagreeing with me. I care about those being the only voices left on the thread. Sorry.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't care about people disagreeing with me. I care about those being the only voices left on the thread. Sorry.

Theres always going to be different opinions and 'voices'. That's it. But a claim that people are saying things such as 'greta is an idiot' is either true or it isn't. And no one has actually said that in this thread.

hetuzozaho

Tell me how wrote: »

I think it is a bad idea to leave it to a group of voices who will then clap each other on the back and say 'We're right, there is no problem. Greta is an idiot. Sure no one is disagreeing with us'.

That's fair enough IMHO

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Theres always going to be different opinions. That's it.

That's obvious. But it is worth showcasing that some opinions are supported by facts and science and some, well, aren't.

That's leaving aside the philosophical conundrum of why wouldn't people want to move towards sustainability or better systems and practices for no other reason than for the attempt to help society. We are never going to be holding hands and dancing around a tree together but I hate the attitude of 'My life is perfect and I am not going to change even if it would help others' all the time.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

So, you have no evidence or supporting argument that the tweet is incorrect, but you expect me to answer these questions. And what if I say the answers are Yes, it is solely due to emissions, Yes it is backed by data. What then? You will ask me on what basis I am making those claims? And if I answer, well, a climate scientist said so we'll be back here again.

What do you think? Do you think she is wrong? On what basis are you making this judgement?

This is actually very interesting because it is indicative of what is happening on twitter in relation to the topic. There are many who are steadfastly going out of their way to cast doubt on what professionals are saying in relation to this matter. I found this interaction particularly enlightening.

https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/1214367143837544448

I'd suggest you click in to the tweet to see the full engagement. What is it that is motivating people to behave as Mr Smith did just to argue that there is no problem?

This is partially why I continue to post on this thread. I think it is a bad idea to leave it to a group of voices who will then clap each other on the back and say 'We're right, there is no problem. Greta is an idiot. Sure no one is disagreeing with us'.

Again if you post something in a discussion board, you should be willing to discuss it and give you opinion on what you have posted, and you still not willing to do that and avoiding answering basic questions.

What is your opinion on the tweet as I have asked?

My Opinion, If it wasn't already clear...

There is no data anywhere to support that a 1 degree rise in temperature in Australia in 100% related to emissions only and therefore I believe this tweet is a sensationalist tweet about the current issue in AUS.

The tweet basically says, there are no natural causes to climate change.... None..... Zero, its all human related...... and you don't even have to be a climate change denier (Or whatever) to know that this is simply not the case.

There are both natural and human causes to climate change, it is not 100% of one or the other. What the split actually is is still a discussion of debate.

Now my issue with this type of reporting, is that soon people will start to see the small untruths in these headlines. You may say sure it does't matter as the main message is still valid?

But I still thing this strategy is wrong and over time, the more people that notice these, they will start saying, sure if they are not telling the whole truth, then how can we believe anything they say.

This is why I used the previous examples of Venice, where the headline claimed "the worst flood in 50 years" and the article directly below said it was higher 45 years ago (Or something).

Immediately you question why they wrote the headline incorrectly, what is the motive for that. It does matter, if the real issue of the flooding itself or the increase rate of flooding in recent times is significant anymore, you already see they are no fully honest so will question anything else they say.

Why could the headline not have said "Worst flood since the year 19XX"?? is it that hard?

Why could Kate not have said that, yes there are some natural causes and cycles in effect, but the data from the IPPC (Or elsewhere) clearly shows this natural effect is insignificant when compared to the human element!!

Its not the data and causes I am against, it is they way it is presented that I think will eventually be its downfall.

Slowyourrole

Greta, a 17 year old, having to explain to Meatloaf, a 125 year old (aprox), the difference between scientifically based claims and his feelings based opinion, is just the last decade in a nutshell.

Tuisceanch

ForestFire wrote: »

There are both natural and human causes to climate change, it is not 100% of one or the other. What the split actually is is still a discussion of debate.

Just to pick up on this point.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

• Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
• If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.
• Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.
• Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.

In its 2013 fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated in its summary for policymakers that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans.

This somewhat convoluted statement has been often misinterpreted as implying that the human responsibility for modern warming lies somewhere between 50% and 100%. In fact, as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.

In conclusion the article states

While there are natural factors that affect the Earth’s climate, the combined influence of volcanoes and changes in solar activity would have resulted in cooling rather than warming over the past 50 years.

The global warming witnessed over the past 150 years matches nearly perfectly what is expected from greenhouse gas emissions and other human activity, both in the simple model examined here and in more complex climate models. The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is around 100%.

Some uncertainty remains due to the role of natural variability, but researchers suggest that ocean fluctuations and similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming.

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

Again if you post something in a discussion board, you should be willing to discuss it and give you opinion on what you have posted, and you still not willing to do that and avoiding answering basic questions.

What is your opinion on the tweet as I have asked?

My Opinion, If it wasn't already clear...

There is no data anywhere to support that a 1 degree rise in temperature in Australia in 100% related to emissions only and therefore I believe this tweet is a sensationalist tweet about the current issue in AUS.

The tweet basically says, there are no natural causes to climate change.... None..... Zero, its all human related...... and you don't even have to be a climate change denier (Or whatever) to know that this is simply not the case.

There are both natural and human causes to climate change, it is not 100% of one or the other. What the split actually is is still a discussion of debate.

Now my issue with this type of reporting, is that soon people will start to see the small untruths in these headlines. You may say sure it does't matter as the main message is still valid?

But I still thing this strategy is wrong and over time, the more people that notice these, they will start saying, sure if they are not telling the whole truth, then how can we believe anything they say.

This is why I used the previous examples of Venice, where the headline claimed "the worst flood in 50 years" and the article directly below said it was higher 45 years ago (Or something).

Immediately you question why they wrote the headline incorrectly, what is the motive for that. It does matter, if the real issue of the flooding itself or the increase rate of flooding in recent times is significant anymore, you already see they are no fully honest so will question anything else they say.

Why could the headline not have said "Worst flood since the year 19XX"?? is it that hard?

Why could Kate not have said that, yes there are some natural causes and cycles in effect, but the data from the IPPC (Or elsewhere) clearly shows this natural effect is insignificant when compared to the human element!!

Its not the data and causes I am against, it is they way it is presented that I think will eventually be its downfall.

I read an article last year how terminology had to become more draconian in order to communicate the immediate need for action. For years, articles included words and phrase like 'could result in catastrophic impact' or 'may result' or 'it's possible' which saw the effect of many readers either consciously or subconsciously focused on the 'could' or 'may' or 'it's possible' in order to feel less concerned that bad things were happening. So instead, articles were communicated much more bluntly to say here is what is happening, and will happen if action is not taken. But unfortunately, a consequence of that was that people, again, either consciously or subconsciously reacted by ignoring the articles altogether because they then made for very uncomfortable reading.
Another side effect of that was the way some used it to invalidate the core message. Such as you are doing and taking the opportunity when an author clarified that the wording was not categorically to be taken literally or that there was room for interpretation that that meant that the entire message was invalidated.
I'm not speaking for Kate Marvel, but, I expect that her position is that human activity is having the impact of changing what would be a somewhat natural event in terms of frequency and impact to be a catastrophic one.

I imagine it must be very frustrating to be a climate and environmental professional and in trying to alert people to the fact that there is need for serious efforts and changes to be made to be met with such pedantry as arguing over how they present the message.

In a world where every sports interview seemingly includes the phrase 'giving it 110%' or 'they killed themselves with effort' or similar, I wish those with such passion for clear communication focused on arguing about correcting them instead of trying to negate the much less misleading message that human behaviours are having serious consequences.

But, all that being said, I reckon that for many, it is just another angle to ensure that they do not have to change their lifestyle, behaviour, practices or expectation and that is really all they are concerned about.

ForestFire

Tell Me How, although I may not fully agree with your last post, at least I see where your coming from now and some of your reasoning.

Its different to how I see it, maybe because I come from electronics background, where in general everything is precisely defined and there is very little uncertainty in the tests we perform.

So is your approach or my approach better in general, I don't know, it might affect different people in different ways, as it does us.

I would not say though, my frustration with the reporting invalidates it all, for me at least, but it's gets to the point of being annoying, where you just want it told as it is, especially with the more blatant headlines are released.

As for the sports reference, everyone knows overpaid premier league players only operate at 50% max, as per there contracts, so 110% is actually 55% effort :-)
(seriously though, everyone knows this is just a saying and not actually based on any form of measurement)

Tuisceanch

Australia BOM - State of the Climate 2018

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

This fifth, biennial State of the Climate report draws on the latest monitoring, science and projection information to describe variability and changes in Australia’s climate. Observations and climate modelling paint a consistent picture of ongoing, long term climate change interacting with underlying natural variability.

Fire weather is largely monitored in Australia using the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI).

Climate change,including increasing temperatures,is contributing to these changes.Considerable year‑to‑year variability also occurs, with La Niña years, for example 2010–2011 and 1999–2000,generally associated with a lower number of days with high FFDI values.

Ex-emergency chiefs sound climate alarm - April 2019
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6014638/ex-emergency-chiefs-sound-climate-alarm/?cs=14231

"We are deeply concerned about the lack of climate action at a national level and felt obligated to speak out," former NSW Fire and Rescue commissioner Greg Mullins said in a statement.

"In the last year we've seen unseasonal fires in Tasmania, Victoria, NSW, Queensland and Western Australia, floods and twin cyclones in parts of northern Australia, longer bushfire danger periods and fires burning in rainforests.

"Rising greenhouse gas pollution from the burning of coal, oil and gas is worsening extreme weather and putting people in danger."

This is not normal: what's different about the NSW mega fires - Nov 2019
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/this-is-not-normal/

Greg Mullins is a Climate Councillor, member of the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action and Former NSW Fire and Rescue Commissioner.

In my 47 years of fighting fires I don’t remember this happening much. Now it happens quite regularly. On Friday, the atmosphere was relatively stable and therefore shouldn’t have been conducive to these wildly unpredictable and dangerous events. Yet it happened. Unprecedented.

Warmer, drier conditions with higher fire danger are preventing agencies from conducting as much hazard reduction burning – it is often either too wet, or too dry and windy to burn safely. Blaming "greenies" for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/is-there-really-a-green-conspiracy-to-stop-bushfire-hazard-reduction

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/explainer-how-effective-is-bushfire-hazard-reduction-on-australias-fires

Climate patterns behind Australia's bushfires, heat and drought set to improve - Dec 31 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/01/climate-patterns-behind-australias-bushfires-heat-and-drought-set-to-improve

The bureau’s climate experts have said the IOD and the SAM have combined with climate change to deliver Australia’s recent run of record-breaking heat.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0200.1

The Indian Ocean has sustained robust surface warming in recent decades, but the role of multidecadal variability remains unclear.

Indian Ocean temperatures exhibit strong warming trends since the 1950s limited to the surface and south of 30°S, while extensive subsurface cooling occurs over much of the tropical Indian Ocean.

https://weather.com/en-IN/india/monsoon/news/2019-09-16-2019-to-be-one-of-strongest-iod-years-on-record-expert

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31842-3

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I read an article last year how terminology had to become more draconian in order to communicate the immediate need for action. For years, articles included words and phrase like 'could result in catastrophic impact' or 'may result' or 'it's possible' which saw the effect of many readers either consciously or subconsciously focused on the 'could' or 'may' or 'it's possible' in order to feel less concerned that bad things were happening. So instead, articles were communicated much more bluntly to say here is what is happening, and will happen if action is not taken. But unfortunately, a consequence of that was that people, again, either consciously or subconsciously reacted by ignoring the articles altogether because they then made for very uncomfortable reading.
Another side effect of that was the way some used it to invalidate the core message. Such as you are doing and taking the opportunity when an author clarified that the wording was not categorically to be taken literally or that there was room for interpretation that that meant that the entire message was invalidated.
I'm not speaking for Kate Marvel, but, I expect that her position is that human activity is having the impact of changing what would be a somewhat natural event in terms of frequency and impact to be a catastrophic one.
I imagine it must be very frustrating to be a climate and environmental professional and in trying to alert people to the fact that there is need for serious efforts and changes to be made to be met with such pedantry as arguing over how they present the message.
In a world where every sports interview seemingly includes the phrase 'giving it 110%' or 'they killed themselves with effort' or similar, I wish those with such passion for clear communication focused on arguing about correcting them instead of trying to negate the much less misleading message that human behaviours are having serious consequences.
But, all that being said, I reckon that for many, it is just another angle to ensure that they do not have to change their lifestyle, behaviour, practices or expectation and that is really all they are concerned about.

In the study of climate change - scientific research and theoretical modeling use prescribed scientific methods of investigation. In the case of scientific reseach - findings are derived by means of statistical analysis of collected data and rigourous testing.

Scientists avoid any tendency to generalise or exaggerate any findings beyond the scope of their reseach and ensure that the data actually supports the proposed hypothesis. Findings are also limited to prescribed levels of statistical confidence - hence the use of probabilistic language in the conclusions of many scientific reports.

There is no room for the use of 'draconian" or other extremist language in science for the sake of populist demands. Neither should science be politicised no matter what those demands are.

There is a big difference in a sports presenter reporting on a game, a newspaper trying to drum up revenue by using exaggerated headlines and a scientific paper or report.

Eitherway it's a very strange lack of logic and leap into hyperspace to suggest that anyone who dares to be even slightly sceptical regarding scientific findings only do so as they don't want to "change their lifestyle, behaviour, practices or expectation and that is really all they are concerned about"

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

In the study of climate change - scientific research and theoretical modeling use prescribed scientific methods of investigation. In the case of scientific reseach - findings are derived by means of statistical analysis of collected data and rigourous testing.

Scientists avoid any tendency to generalise or exaggerate any findings beyond the scope of their reseach and ensure that the data actually supports the proposed hypothesis. Findings are also limited to prescribed levels of statistical confidence - hence the use of probabilistic language in the conclusions of many scientific reports.

There is no room for the use of 'draconian" or other extremist language in science for the sake of populist demands. Neither should science be politicised no matter what those demands are.

There is a big difference in a sports presenter reporting on a game, a newspaper trying to drum up revenue by using exaggerated headlines and a scientific paper or report.

Eitherway it's a very strange lack of logic and leap into hyperspace to suggest that anyone who dares to be even slightly sceptical regarding scientific findings only do so as they don't want to "change their lifestyle, behaviour, practices or expectation and that is really all they are concerned about"

With respect to the bolded point, I just explained how it ended up being necessary.

As for your assessment as to my logic, I'm not bothered, your contribution, amongst others, throughout the entirety of this thread has supported me forming such an opinion.
You're going to continue to expressing your scepticism (largely without objective evidence), I'm going to continue trying to highlight the need to advocate for listening to the experts and promoting positive action.
We're approaching the end of the thread, who knows if there'll be another one.

Tuisceanch

https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/604/html

Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism

When the scientific method yields discoveries that imperil people’s lifestyle or worldviews or impinge on corporate vested interests, the public and political response can be anything but favorable. Sometimes the response slides into overt denial of scientific facts, although this denial is often claimed to involve “skepticism”. We outline the distinction between true skepticism and denial with several case studies. We propose some guidelines to enable researchers to differentiate legitimate critical engagement from bad-faith harassment, and to enable members of the public to pursue their skeptical engagement and critique without such engagement being mistaken for harassment.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

The Basics of Climate Change

• Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate;
• Human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere;
• Climate records show a warming trend;
• Many complex processes shape our climate;
• Human activities are changing the climate;
• How will climate change in the future?

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming

Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. The greenhouse effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect
warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and
global warming.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=73

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

• Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad77/baeca26c4f77a9d043a5b53e058ea959e495.pdf
• Measurements of downward longwave radiation http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/web-L15.pdf

the mechanism by which molecules absorb heat energy and the effect that these molecules have on atmospheric temperature and climate change.

Carbon dioxide doesn't have a molecular dipole in its ground state. However, some CO2 vibrations produce a structure with a molecular dipole. Because of this, CO2 strongly absorbs infrared radiation.

Electronic spectroscopy uses visible or ultraviolet (UV) radiation to probe the absorption of energy by molecules between electronic energy levels. IR spectroscopy probes the absorption of energy by molecules between vibrational energy levels. The principle behind all forms of absorption spectroscopy is
the same.

Accurate measurements exist since 1850 for global temperature. It is clear that that temperature of the planet is increasing and the rate of increase is becoming greater. Land is heating faster than the oceans but both are warming. The increasing of night time temperatures is greater than day time temperatures. The troposphere is becoming warmer as the stratosphere cools.

https://blogs.iu.edu/sciu/2017/06/13/spectroscopy-astronomy-to-art/

spectroscopy refers to the study of the interaction between light and matter. Today, the field of spectroscopy is incredibly broad and advanced, with applications in not just astronomy but also chemistry, physics, biology, environmental science, and even art!

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/there-is-overwhelming-evidence-that-climate-change-is-human-caused-townhall/

First, greenhouse gases are well studied, and their properties are nonnegotiable: They absorb and re-emit longwave radiation, whether they’re in a laboratory setting or in the real atmosphere. To back this up with historical evidence, scientists have known since the 1860s that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and since the 1890s that this will affect the heat budget of the Earth through warming. Even then, these claims were based on empirical evidence, and they’re supported by decades of laboratory research.

Global warming is measured fact. Working out the culprits has been like Crime Scene Investigation: Physics Edition.

Some evidence comes from a facility in Billings, Oklahoma. Parts of air like water vapour and carbon dioxide naturally glow with infrared heat at very specific frequencies. The Billings site has a device that measured an incredibly precise “fingerprint” of the sky’s heating.
Investigators reported in 2015[3] that they found fingerprints across the sky with a clear match on the heating trigger. Below the blue line is the file fingerprint for carbon dioxide (CO2) heating, which we release into the air when we do things like burn coal & oil. This file fingerprint comes from basic physics backed by precise lab readings.

The red line is the measured fingerprint in the sky over Billings and is a rock solid match. Each spike is extra heat coming down from the extra CO2 molecules that is heating us up. Measurements in Alaska and from satellites[4] confirm this.

This is just one slide in the huge folder of empirical evidence showing human activity to be the main cause of recent warming.

• 1 – Arrhenius (1896) On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
• 2 – Hausfather et al (2017) Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records, Science Advances
• 3 – Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature
• 4 – Harries et al (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Tell me how

Bondyield wrote: »

On what basis do you believe people who question climate change have the attitude of " My life is perfect and I am not going to change even if it would help others all the time".

Have you ever considered that some people are open minded and want to examine the evidence for themselves?

Given you only joined Boards in the last hour or so, take some time to read the thread.
Or some of the other ones about promoting sustainable initiatives such as less dependency on private cars.

On your last sentence? Yes. They are generally the ones who recognize action is needed.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

With respect to the bolded point, I just explained how it ended up being necessary.

As explained it is not possible to use hyperbole and flowery language in scientific research. If you do - it is not science.

Tell me how wrote: »

As for your assessment as to my logic, I'm not bothered, your contribution, amongst others, throughout the entirety of this thread has supported me forming such an opinion.
You're going to continue to expressing your scepticism (largely without objective evidence), I'm going to continue trying to highlight the need to advocate for listening to the experts and promoting positive action. We're approaching the end of the thread, who knows if there'll be another one.

Ascribing the role of selfish super villain with dubious motives to anyone with whom you disagree doesn't wash you know.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/604/html

Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

The Basics of Climate Change

• Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate;
• Human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere;
• Climate records show a warming trend;
• Many complex processes shape our climate;
• Human activities are changing the climate;
• How will climate change in the future?

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=73

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

• Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad77/baeca26c4f77a9d043a5b53e058ea959e495.pdf
• Measurements of downward longwave radiation http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation




http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/web-L15.pdf

https://blogs.iu.edu/sciu/2017/06/13/spectroscopy-astronomy-to-art/

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/there-is-overwhelming-evidence-that-climate-change-is-human-caused-townhall/



https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

Errrh ok - I could take a guess what you're getting at there - though your own thoughts or ideas on any of that might be a good start before the mega link dump ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

As explained it is not possible to use hyperbole and flowery language in scientific research. If you do - it is not science.

Twitter and newspaper articles are not platforms for presenting scientific research. That is why neither are accepted as references in serious academic work. They are places where engagement with the non-scientific community is carried out.
Hence the language choice.

Ascribing the role of selfish super villain with dubious motives to anyone with whom you disagree doesn't wash.

There's nothing super about choosing to be regressive or ignorant in my view.
I don't immediately assume that anyone who disagrees is such, but, when they are intent in proving themselves as such, I believe them.

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Errrh ok - I could take a guess what you're getting at there - though hour own thoughts or ideas on any of that might be a good start before the mega link dump ...

It's a post to facilitate and help open minded people who want to examine the evidence for themselves.

The problem is that it's not meaningful for anybody to say they are skeptical ,if they don't first understand the scientific basis first. That is not such an easy task. The area of political discourse is a separate matter. I suspect most people are really saying that they are skeptical based on media reporting and possible political implications.

In reality however
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions/

The majority of the carbon emission reduction pledges for 2030 that 184 countries made under the Paris Agreement aren’t nearly enough to keep global warming well below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). Some countries won’t achieve their pledges, and some of the world's largest carbon emitters will continue to increase their emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists.

https://feu-us.org/behind-the-climate-pledges/

So the question is whether one doesn't believe the basic science, or whether one doesn't believe the extent of the predicted impact will be as severe as depicted, and that therefore no meaningful action is necessary, even if it was possible.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Twitter and newspaper articles are not platforms for presenting scientific research. That is why neither are accepted as references in serious academic work. They are places where engagement with the non-scientific community is carried out. Hence the language choice.

Whose choice? Do you mean yours? Advocate describing the auricle of a porcine as a gossamer coin holding device and you are in the realms of fairy land. Or in other words start using exaggerated or hyperbolic language which does not reflect scientific findings - then you are no longer referring to the science.

Tell me how wrote: »

There's nothing super about choosing to be regressive or ignorant in my view. I don't immediately assume that anyone who disagrees is such, but, when they are intent in proving themselves as such, I believe them.

So that boils down to calling others 'regressive and ignorant' because you believe them to be so. Nice.

But yes indeed I'm sceptical of the role of children as in the case of greta with regard to alarmism. That does not mean that anyone who does so is either a 'denier' or a skeptic but rather simply recognising the role that skepticism plays with regard to scientific advancement and discovery. Something that alarmists in general dont seem to wish to acknowledge for some strange reason.

Tell me how

Bondyield wrote: »

What is the conclusive evidence you have seen that convinced you that climate change is predominately caused by humans?

Okay, firstly, the word 'predominantly' is a loaded word because it implies that without us nothing would happen. There always has and will be climate change. However, the impact of Human behaviours is having a negative effect.
Secondly, for me, this whole conversation is about sustainability and efficient use of resources. We have massive efforts to make in both respects.
I formed my opinions partly through observation of the following.

The IPCC report of October 2018.
Any commentary from scientific and environmental commentators I trust including David Attenborough, Helen Czerski, Cara Agustenberg, Brian Cox amongst others.
My own reading of academic publications and investigating as part of a Masters Thesis considering the sustainable use of materials.


What evidence has lead you to believe that human behaviours are not a problem?

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

It's a post to facilitate and help open minded people who want to examine the evidence for themselves.

The problem is that it's not meaningful for anybody to say they are skeptical ,if they don't first understand the scientific basis first. That is not such an easy task. The area of political discourse is a separate matter. I suspect most people are really saying that they are skeptical based on media reporting and possible political implications.

In reality however
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions/

https://feu-us.org/behind-the-climate-pledges/

So the question is whether you don't believe the basic science or whether you don't believe the extent of the predicted impact will be as severe as depicted and that therefore no meaningful action is necessary even if it was possible.

Thanks for the clarification. I asked simply for the reason that large link dumps tend to make people scroll faster especially where that's all there is.

Btw are you referring to me there? I think you need to read the rest of my comments in this thread if that's the case tbh.

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. I asked simply for the reason that large link dumps tend to make people scroll faster especially where that's all there is.

Btw are you referring to me there? I think you need to read the rest of my comments in this thread if that's the case tbh.

No I'm not referring to you (replace you with 'one') at all. I personally derive great insights from links that are posted on threads pertaining to the subject and listening to people who have a background in the subject, coupled with the fact that it encouraged me to enroll on online courses and purchase books on the subject. It's a fascinating subject and if my post helps other people who are also interested in delving into the details then I'm glad to give something back.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

So that boils down to you callin others 'regressive and ignorant' because you believe them to be so. Nice.

I know this is a delicate point because of the whole 'attack the poster' direction.

But, I have not used these terms lightly or immediately, but, in my view, suggesting that it is no big deal that a glacier in New Zealand melted given that an ice cube removed from a freezer will melt on the floor of the kitchen is ignorant.
Or, for example, saying that you refuse to recycle or to consider changing your mode of transport from a diesel car is regressive.

Tuisceanch

For anybody interested in learning about the science of climate change then can I recommend

Principles of Planetary Climate. This book introduces the reader to all the basic physical building blocks of climate needed to understand the present and past climate of Earth, the climates of Solar System planets, and the climates of extrasolar planets.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I know this is a delicate point because of the whole 'attack the poster' direction.

But, I have not used these terms lightly or immediately, but, in my view, suggesting that it is no big deal that a glacier in New Zealand melted given that an ice cube removed from a freezer will melt on the floor of the kitchen is ignorant.
Or, for example, saying that you refuse to recycle or to consider changing your mode of transport from a diesel car is regressive.

Btw just to clarify your comment above where you included me alongside the other villains - I have never suggested that that a "glacier in New Zealand melted given that an ice cube removed from a freezer will melt on the floor of the kitchen" Or even ever stated that I "refuse to recycle or to consider changing ...mode of transport from a diesel car: or similar ...

So you can remove me from that list of those you think 'ignorant and regressive'. One thing for sure that approach is certainly no way to persuade people that you are somehow right and they are wrong.

hetuzozaho

Tuisceanch wrote: »

No I'm not referring to you (replace you with 'one') at all. I personally derive great insights from links that are posted on threads pertaining to the subject and listening to people who have a background in the subject, coupled with the fact that it encouraged me to enroll on online courses and purchase books on the subject. It's a fascinating subject and if my post helps other people who are also interested in delving into the details then I'm glad to give something back.

The Debate, Denial, and Skepticism is a good read, cheers for that!

The scientists found a planet made of diamonds, I'm in