back to article 'Sunspots drive climate change' theory is result of ancient error

A bunch of boffins has completed the first-ever revision of the world's most important sunspot data repository, along the way challenging the theory that climate change is substantially attributable to the prevalence of sunspots. It turns out, in fact, that the pro-sunspots argument relies on a statistical artefact introduced …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. graeme leggett

    a golden rule

    If you rely on something to prove your point, check the data is solid

    And its corollary

    If you want to challenge something, check their data

    1. LucreLout Silver badge

      Re: a golden rule

      If you want to challenge something, check their data

      Yes, lovely, only the CRU hack showed widespread gaming of the system by climate 'scientists' who had destroyed the data upon which their central hyposthesis was based, precisely to prevent its being challenged.

      Too many careers, too much money, and too many ideological beliefs are now on the line for there ever to be credible, impartial, and persuasive science done around the issue now. With all the crying wolf, until the sheep are eaten, nobody is going to believe the little boy doing the shouting.

      1. rtfazeberdee

        Re: a golden rule

        get yourself a double walled tin foil hat and wear it permanently..

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Deniers = red herring

      It's the inability of the greatly eco-concerned masses to plan their way out of a wet paper bag that is by far the larger impediment to efficient and effective progress.

      Has anyone even bothered to move past anguish and prepare a darn priority list? Ordered by effect, cost efficiency and speed of implementation. With coal and bunker fuels near the top of the list, perhaps methane leaks too. Big fat targets, some relatively cost effective.

      Blaming the deniers is in itself a dangerous distraction.

      It's past time to stop blaming the deniers, they that are likely living a lifestyle not significantly different than the wailing masses that haven't done much either.

      If somebody is managing the whole campaign of inaction, fire them.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Deniers?

    Mr. Chirgwin, your use of the derogatory term "denier" self-identifies you as a non-credible hack. Please go away.

    1. Antonymous Coward
      Holmes

      Re: Deniers?

      Thinking the same

      ...climate deniers use to “prove” ...

      I wonder when the next service at the cult of Warmism will be... so I can give it a miss.

      What's wrong with you Reg? I'm not sure how much more of this warmist/denier twattery I can take.

    2. RIBrsiq

      Re: Deniers?

      Would you prefer the term "faithful"? Maybe "believers"...?

      Because at this point in time, I cannot fathom what else can make any sane person deny anthropogenic global climate change.

      What are deniers waiting for? Bangladesh under water...? Because we're headed there.

      But I am sure the faithful will hand-wave that away as well: that is, after all, how faith works. Will probably claim the feared space goat pissed the sea level higher when no one was looking or something.

      Interesting times up ahead. And not in a good way.

      1. flearider

        Re: Deniers?

        18 yrs 7 months no warming .. nuff said ??

      2. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Deniers?

        The problem that many of us "skeptics" (not deniers) have is not that the climate is changing but the reason WHY it is changing and the gospel of what must be done. To say it's CO2 and not embrace nuke power is folly. To say that big star in the sky has no effect is questionable... It's output does change and that is always discounted.

        Yes, the seas are rising. The overall temperature is rising. But why? There's as many answers as there are factions in the "warmist" camp and each sub-group likes to believe it/s answer is the only one.

        1. RIBrsiq

          Re: Deniers?

          A skeptic is a person who when presented with a claim demands evidence for said claim. But when staisfactory evidence is presented, a proper skeptic accepts it and proceeds accordingly.

          A denier or believer, on the other hand, will continue denying and believing regardless of any amount or type of evidence presented.

          Look at the state of the climate change deniers' camp. Can you see why they are described as deniers...?

          Of course not!! Because you believe and evidence will not sway you...!

          LOL!

          1. rtfazeberdee

            Re: Deniers?

            “If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

            ― Sam Harris

            I think this covers the description of the deniers

            1. ITfarmer

              Re: Deniers?

              "rtfazeberdee

              “If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

              ― Sam Harris

              I think this covers the description of the deniers"

              Really ? Well given the FACT that EVERY SINGLE climate model has been proven WRONG - not by a small margin either - the energies required to sustain these models is many factors over the total power output of the world power stations combined.

              When quoting "Denier" look the in the mirror and recognise your own failings.

          2. Mark 85 Silver badge

            @RIBrsiq -- Re: Deniers?

            Go back and re-read my comment... You'll see that skeptic != denier. I don't deny there are changes, I'm skeptical of all the fanatical solutions that aren't working... or not living up to the hype which worse.

            I see your screaming and venting at all who disagree with you. So scream away and show us the fanatic that you really are.

        2. John Lilburne Silver badge

          Re: Deniers?

          [

          The problem that many of us "skeptics" (not deniers) have is not that the climate is changing but the reason WHY it is changing and the gospel of what must be done.

          ]

          What you are maintaining is the equivalent of saying "that if a building is on fire because of an electrical fire, then adding a bit of petrol to the flames will do no harm". Seems to me that regardless of the root cause (the science most likely has it right, but no matter) adding to the problem isn't a particularly smart way of proceeding.

        3. fitzsubs

          Re: Deniers?

          Yeah, that's it, nobody thought to check the temperature anomaly against TSI. Doh!

          Oh, wait, it has been. So have aerosols, methane, volcanic ash, ocean heat exchange, land use like deforestation, and every other factor that might even remotely affect the global mean temperature. And guess what...... GHGs are the only factors that have affected the century long trend of global mean temperatures. Not only that, but ocean heat exchange is the second strongest factor that has the greatest affect on global mean air and sea surface temperatures.

          And even more enlightening, total solar irradiance is negatively correlated with global mean temperature anomaly. While the Sun does provide the energy that heats the Earth, while TSI was decreasing, CO2 and other GHGs were increasing and trapping more and more the energy that the Sun provides.

          The problem is that in order to understand this requires either having an education in science and mathematics or simply accepting the analysis of credible professional scientists. Of course, this can be quite a conundrum because it requires some rudimentary level of science education to be able to read the material published by credible scientists. And lacking in even a rudimentary level of knowledge of science makes reading science literature an impossibility. So what is a person to do? Well, there is always the published positions scientific organizations that represent the larger body of scientists,like the American Institute of Physicists.

          The problem still remains, having learned to read. Even then, you can get past that by having a friend read it to you or taking adult night courses.

          So, all in all, there is no reason why you should not know the facts. Stupidity isn't an excuse.

          Ergo, the term "denier".

          1. MondoMan

            Re: "credible" scientists

            The problem, of course, is that climate science is an immature field, and it turns out that a significant number of climate scientists are not credible. Credible scientists don't respond as Dr. Phil Jones did: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Credible scientists don't publish articles based on novel statistical calculations without having any expertise in statistics nor a collaborator with such to prevent basic mathematical errors.

            Scientists in other fields look upon climate science as a train wreck -- you can't look away, but feel sad for all the people hurt by the sheer incompetence so often on display.

        4. Michael 31

          Re: Deniers?

          > Yes, the seas are rising. The overall temperature is rising. But why? There's as many answers as there are factions in the "warmist" camp and each sub-group likes to believe it/s answer is the only one.

          The point about carbon dioxide is that is that whil emany factors - solar activity for example, fluctuate the effect of carbon dioxide is one sided. It is also very long lasting: the CO2 we have the atmosphere now will warm us for another hundred years or so. ANd we have a choice about the CO2 we emit - we can change the amount we emit while - if we are smart - retaining our standard of living.

          I am not a 'warmist' - I am 'factist' and I hate to come over all 'factinista' on you - but to the best that it can be calculated - what is happening corresponds more or less to what we would expect from a CO2 warmed world.

          1. RIBrsiq

            Re: Deniers?

            Ah, well:

            Deniers gonna deny, one might say.

            Thanks to all for so effectively illustrating the situation. And even more thanks to those few voices of reason: you make me think there might still be hope... But then I read the next comment.

            For what it's worth, I personally wish the deniers were right. Because their being wrong means great social upheaval and suffering for millions, if not billions, of fellow humans the vast majority of whom did nothing to cause the problem.

            But I am afraid the evidence does not bode well for either my wishes or their denial. The laws of physics are poorly affected by wishful thinking.

        5. John Hughes

          Re: Deniers?

          To say that big star in the sky has no effect is questionable... It's output does change and that is always discounted.
          Nonsense. Solar output is always considered when looking for causes of warming. The simple fact is that there is no trend in any solar parameter that correlates with the observed warming.

          (Every time someone says something like "scientists haven't considered..." they are wrong. Thats what scientists spend all their time doing).

      3. Chris Miller

        @RIBrsiq

        Nice straw man - now point out who's denying "anthropogenic global climate change"? Very few ElReg readers, I'll bet. What some people may 'deny' is that catastrophic global warming is inevitable unless we change our ways, often in ways that would themselves be catastrophic for civilisation.

        Over the last century or two we've dumped perhaps 1,000 GtC into the atmosphere. As it's a greenhouse gas it would be surprising if this did not result in some elevation of temperatures. So there are two retrospective scientific questions that follow: (a) how much have global temperatures actually risen; and (b) how much of any rise is properly attributable to anthropic activity (this latter is what the article is about).

        There are also prospective scientific questions, such as "if we continue carbon emissions, how might that change future temperatures?" and "what would be the effect of such a change?" (note that this requires some estimate of future emissions over many decades, which is itself not really a matter for science alone). And it's clear we really don't have that good a handle on the correct answers. And if we establish the science, that leaves the biggie: "what should we do about it?", which is a political question, though no doubt scientific input would be a good thing.

        1. RIBrsiq

          Re: @RIBrsiq

          @ Chris Miller:

          No need to go far. Just read some of the other comments right here. You'll find that deniers come in all shapes and sizes and don't agree on what, exactly, they are denying. Just that they deny in general.

          The generic argument seems to go like this:

          "Climate is not changing! But if it is, it's actually cooling, not warming! Even if it is warming, it's not our fault. However, if it is our fault, we cannot do anything about it because it would destroy our way of life. And if it is proven that climate change will destroy things even more, then it is too late to do anything now...". Etc. Etc. Ad nauseam.

          1. Chris Miller

            Re: @RIBrsiq

            Can you point to any actual comments here that fit your far-fetched description? Or is it just the voices in your head?

            If I wanted to adopt your approach of erecting straw men, it would be easy to produce a description of alarmism:

            "An ice age is coming - WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! No, it isn't, but the Earth is warming - WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! I have a model that predicts a global temperature rise of 2 degrees over the next 20 years. (20 years later) temperatures haven't changed significantly, but that's not because my science is wrong, the heat is going somewhere we can't see it." etc etc.

            If a denier is your term of choice for someone who refuses to believe a fact in the face of irrefutable evidence (and not intended in any way to form a mental link to holocaust denier, that's just a coincidence), what's the equivalent term for someone who refuses to relinquish a belief after it's been contradicted by the evidence?

            1. g e

              @Chris Miller | Re: @RIBrsiq

              "Cultist" or "Fanatic", probably

        2. Michael 31

          Re: @RIBrsiq

          We can do nothing about history - but the rate of CO2 emission has risen exponentially and currently is at around 35 billion tonnnes of CO2 per year. We can choose what to do about that.

          Regarding your questions

          (a) how much have global temperatures actually risen;

          Look at http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/ or http://berkeleyearth.org/

          Our best estimates all agree

          (b) how much of any rise is properly attributable to anthropic activity (this latter is what the article is about).

          Pretty much all of it is attributable to carbon dioxide emissions

          The future is always uncertain - but th ebest estimates are that the temperatures will keep rising roughly as they have been.

          It seems to me that a precautionary approach should be the minimum response to this.

          1. Chris Miller
            FAIL

            @Michael 31

            You were doing so well ... and then you invoked the precautionary principle.

          2. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: @RIBrsiq

            (b) how much of any rise is properly attributable to anthropic activity (this latter is what the article is about).

            Pretty much all of it is attributable to carbon dioxide emissions

            While that point is debateable, what is not debateable is that "pretty much all" CO2 emissions are not attributable to humans. You've conflated two seperate issues as though one provides evidence of the other. If every human dies tomorrow, we're talking about maybe 6% reduction in emissions.

            1. John Hughes

              Re: @RIBrsiq

              While that point is debateable, what is not debateable is that "pretty much all" CO2 emissions are not attributable to humans.

              What we know is that human CO2 emissions are about 200% of observed the rise in CO2.

              I.E. about half what we emit is going into carbon sinks (plants, ocean acidification) and the rest into the atmosphere and all the atmospheric increase is us.

              1. LucreLout Silver badge

                Re: @RIBrsiq

                all the atmospheric increase is us.

                Let's assume for the sake of argument that was a proven fact. It isn't, but we'll just assume for now that it is.

                Emitting zero carbon is beyond our ability as a species - things we eat rot and the air we expel during breathing contains elevated CO2. So what we're left with is trying to minimise our collective output.

                Minimising our output can be achieved in just two ways - lower output per person,or fewer people.

                Efficiency gains should reduce our output per person, but they haven't, because we've found other uses for that energy - flight, air con, a lot of computers etc. People who were poor and had limited access to heating/cooling, transport, or power are now more wealthy and have raised their output per person.

                People simply won't go back to an agrarian lifestyle, they just won't, so we can only reduce emissions per person by changing how the power they consume is generated. As vehicle propulsion currently means hydrocarbons, we can only target coal/gas/oil fired power stations for replacement with nuclear.

                The above, if it could be implemented globally without proliferation of nuclear weapons, would reset our emissions by a generation or two. The issue then becomes flight. People are flying more often and further than ever before. Families don't live in the same town anymore - they don't even live in the same country or even continent. Only one couple I know are from the same country: the rest must fly to visit family. Jet engines are being made more efficient, but the increase in number of flights will dwarf engineering gains. Automotive uses will be a sideshow to air travel. Trains are still powered by coal (its just burned in the power station rather than the steam engine), which is the worst fuel in terms of CO2:Energy output.

                Absent a carbon neutral jet fuel and some realistic way to power electric cars from nuclear fuel, all we have done is extend the timeline until we inevitably come face to face with route #2 - fewer people.

                You can't double the population and expect emissions to fall. It isn't realistic. So how do you get the population to shrink? Well, you need to reduce the number of children being born. The debate on how best to achieve that can be expected to be heated & emotive, but ultimately you'd have to look to complusory sterilisation after the second child. A capitalist alternative would be to auction permits to have children. That's not something you could force on people without being absolutely certain the science is right this time and that the conclusions drawn from that science are also correct. We're simply nowhere near that point. Things like the CRU hack and all the crying wolf just discredit the 'science' more each year.

                Logically, to minimise economic damage - for society will still need an economy - the least harmful way to reduce the population is to reduce childbirth within the lower half of the economically active adults. The poor, in other words. We'd need to maximise economic activity per person with fewer people in order to minimise the reduction in econoic activity you see, meaning only the well off could breed.

                So what are your answers? What is your road map? There'll be plenty of downvotes for this, but predictably no answers. Slapping a few pence per litre on petrol, a couple of quid on the air passenger levy, and a few hundred on domestic power bills just doesn't change anything. So be honest about how you'd solve the issues... are we rationing child birth or auctioning permits to do it, or are we banning transport entirely and letting grandma freeze to death this winter? Are we having a really big war to whittle down the numbers, or making Logans Run real?

                Let's just say that you don't have any answers, because you don't. You'd never be able to convince the world to follow your plan. Even assuming all climate 'science' is accurate as presented, all we have left in the toy box then is learning to live with the effects of any climate change. To accept it will happen at an ever escalating rate, and to try to reduce its impact upon us. Anything else is just wasting time and resources, assuming you're right about AGW of course. I don't sweat it, because I know you're not, or people like the CRU wouldn't be spinning their research while hiding or destroying their data to prevent it being analysed by more rational minds.

                1. John Hughes

                  Re: @RIBrsiq

                  all the atmospheric increase is us.

                  Let's assume for the sake of argument that was a proven fact. It isn't, but we'll just assume for now that it is.

                  It is a proven fact. We do know how much CO2 we're emitting -- all you have to do is know how much oil, coal and gas is being bought and how much CO2 is emitted when that oil, coal and gas is burned. One is a matter of public record, the other is simple chemistry. (Simplification -- you also have to add the CO2 emitted by concrete construction, but that is also calculable).

                  When you check the numbers you find that our emissions are more or less exactly twice the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

                  Emitting zero carbon is beyond our ability as a species - things we eat rot and the air we expel during breathing contains elevated CO2.

                  Are you a moron? The CO2 in our food comes from the atmosphere -- we, "as animals" are like all other animals carbon neutral. Unless you are suggesting that we eat fossil fuel.

                  As vehicle propulsion currently means hydrocarbons, we can only target coal/gas/oil fired power stations for replacement with nuclear.
                  Been there, done that. I live in France.

                  Trains are still powered by coal
                  Mine aren't. Mine are nuclear powered.

                  Things like the CRU hack and all the crying wolf just discredit the 'science' more each year.
                  Ah, you're a conspiracy theorist. End of conversation.

                  1. LucreLout Silver badge

                    Re: @RIBrsiq

                    The CO2 in our food comes from the atmosphere -- we, "as animals" are like all other animals carbon neutral.

                    Oh, I see. You're an idiot. I get it now.

                    If what you suggest was remotely accurate, in the faintest possible sense, then all we'd have to do to cut emissions was produce food and not eat it. You mistakenly assume people are carbon neutral, when self evidently they aren't, and miss the face that while the population of earth has soared the past 20 years, as have emissions, there has been zero degrees warming. None. Zip. Nada.

                    At best we can esitmate what we emit in terms of emissions. What we can't claim, idocy aside, is that we fully understand the carbon cycle such that we can not only correlate our emissions with global warming, but can state them to be causal. Its BS.

                    You've conveniently rules out any natural increase in emissions and prescribed it all to humans, which is self evidently wrong unless every natural process is a constant. Given a small child could grasp that they are in flux, the prevailing CO2 level will increase and decrease due to NATURE.

                    Trains are still powered by coal

                    Mine aren't. Mine are nuclear powered.

                    So there's no coal fired power stations in France? Quack quack oops. Seriously, even basic research and logic are beyond you. I give up..... you won't learn a thing because you don't want to. Carry on with your religion if you must, but don't ever claim it to be science on this forum again.

                    1. John Hughes

                      Re: @RIBrsiq

                      If what you suggest was remotely accurate, in the faintest possible sense, then all we'd have to do to cut emissions was produce food and not eat it.

                      Yes, that would work. We'd have to make sure nothing else ate it either. Why do you think it wouldn't work? What do you think coal is?

                      At best we can esitmate what we emit in terms of emissions.
                      No, we know pretty much exactly how much we emit -- we're pretty bloody good at keeping track of money so we know how much money we're spending on fossil fuels.

                      You've conveniently rules out any natural increase in emissions and prescribed it all to humans
                      Simple logic. We know how much we're emitting. We know what the increase in atmospheric CO2 is. We know that our emissions are twice the atmospheric increase, therefore all the atmospheric increase is our emissions.

                      So there's no coal fired power stations in France?
                      There are a couple, but a quick visit to gridwatch will show that they generate less than 3% of the electricity.

      4. TheTick

        Re: Deniers?

        "Because at this point in time, I cannot fathom what else can make any sane person deny anthropogenic global climate change."

        Is there any solid, proven evidence for anthropogenic global climate change? Serious question.

        And yes the "denier" tag is disgraceful as it attempts to link skeptics with holocaust deniers (don't even think about "denying" that!).

        1. RIBrsiq

          Re: Deniers?

          "Is there any solid, proven evidence for anthropogenic global climate change? Serious question".

          Serious answer:

          http://theconsensusproject.com/

          Or just read anything accepted by the bulk of scientists and experts who study climate.

          As for the use of the term denier: first time I noticed any link with Holocaust deniers, personally. Which's funny, because I tend to fight extended battles against *those* deniers as well, being from the Middle-East.

          I just use the word to describe people who continue to deny something regardless of any evidence presented. Nothing more is intended.

          1. Mark 65 Silver badge

            Re: Deniers?

            Or just read anything accepted by the bulk of scientists and experts who study climate.

            At one time the bulk of scientists and, for that matter, the World's population actually believed the Earth to be flat. So what?

            The reason I am sceptical is because we are told it is all mankind's fault and yet nuclear power is not embraced but instead utterly pointless needs-to-be-backed-by-gas-turbine windmills are touted and get just as large a state subsidy. Ugly bastard things that, shock horror, don't live up to expectations in generating power. Solar is also a joke for most of the planet where power is needed.

            Sustainable is not covering the planet in windmills. It is also not trying to force people back into the stone age by penalising the poor with your shitty green energy subsidies. Cheap energy is the prime source of growth, without it your economy is fucked.

            If you want to get most people on board I'm afraid you are going to have to come up with some concrete proposals that don't fuck the poor, the economy, and the environment instead of all the subsidy grabbing "thou shalt not" evangelical bullshit.

            1. rtfazeberdee

              Re: Deniers?

              "At one time the bulk of scientists and, for that matter, the World's population actually believed the Earth to be flat. So what?" - no, that was the ignorance of the world at the time not the scientists but the evidence from the scientists came to the rescue to disple that myth

              "The reason I am sceptical is because we are told it is all mankind's fault " - no, its being accelerated by mankind.

              "Solar is also a joke for most of the planet where power is needed." how little you know"

              "concrete proposals that don't fuck the poor, the economy, and the environment instead of all the subsidy grabbing "thou shalt not" evangelical bullshit." and just how much does the CO2 producing industry get in subsidies? it plunges the green subsidies into insignificance.

              you need to read factual literature more and not base your ideas on troll posters

            2. DavidJB

              Re: Deniers?

              Just to be pedantic, there was never a time in the last 2,000 years when the bulk of scientists believed the earth was flat. The approximately spherical shape of the earth was established by the ancient Greeks and accepted by all informed scholars from then on, including medieval philosophers like Aquinas and the Venerable Bede..

            3. fitzsubs

              Re: Deniers?

              @Mark 65

              "At one time the bulk of scientists and, for that matter, the World's population actually believed the Earth to be flat. " - Mark 65

              Oh, geez. Never in the history of man has anyone that could remotely be called a scientist every considered the Earth to be flat.

              "Eratosthenes of Cyrene c. 276 BC[1] – c. 195/194 BC[2]) was a Greek mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography, including the terminology used today.

              He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, "

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

              There are deniers... then there are complete morons.

            4. John Hughes

              Re: Deniers?

              The reason I am sceptical is because we are told it is all mankind's fault and yet nuclear power is not embraced
              A total non-sequitir.

              "I don't believe in global warming because if I believed in global warming I'd be for nuclear power and the greenies aren't for nuclear power so I don't believe in global warming".

              Which aside for being illogical is wrong. James Hansen is for nuclear power, George Monbiot is for nuclear power, I'm for nuclear power.

            5. Libertarian

              Re: Deniers?

              Telling it like it is and in plain basic English, too! Refreshing.

          2. TheTick

            Re: Deniers?

            @RIBrsiq

            "http://theconsensusproject.com/"

            That whole website has zero evidence for anything. Just a bunch of links to articles saying "we're right and that's that!". It peddles the discredited 97% of scientists statistic as if it's not completely and utterly bogus. If I remember they counted any paper that even mentioned climate as though they agreed with the "consensus". They also counted those who believed mankind has an effect on the environment but did not think it would be very significant.

            That website is more like a bunch of kids stamping their feet shouting "IT IS IT IS IT IS!!!".

            So I repeat my question: Is there any solid, proven evidence of *anthropogenic* global climate change? I'll add significant climate change to that question, as me farting adds to climate change, though only the missus notices that much.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Deniers?

            @RIBrsiq, If you believe that then I have a little used bridge you might like to buy. The so called consensus is another piece of fudged data that has been debunked by real scientists.

          4. Nigel 11

            Re: Deniers?

            "Is there any solid, proven evidence for anthropogenic global climate change? Serious question".

            Is it?

            By the time there is that sort of evidence, it will be far too late to do anything about the changes. we'll have to live with them, or perhaps die because of them.

            What is certain is (a) the measureable increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution, and (b) the certainty that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'd far rather we stopped raising the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere *now*, rather than after it's too late. Especially since we now have the technologies to do without burning stuff for energy, and lack only the will to develop and deploy them. (Taxpayers are still *subsidizing* fossil fuel production, FFS! )

        2. John Hughes

          Re: Deniers?

          Is there any solid, proven evidence for anthropogenic global climate change? Serious question.
          Yes.

          Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing.[1]

          The extra CO2 is anthropogenic.[2]

          Without some mysterious unknown effect an increase in CO2 will produce an increase in temperature.[3]

          To avoid quibbles:

          [1] The first person to point out that Mauna Loa is a volcano please go and stand in the corner.

          [2] We know how much CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere using this complicated mathematical technique known as double entry book keeping. It turns out to be about twice the amount of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

          [3] Fourier, 1820. Arrhenius, 1879.

          1. MondoMan

            Re: How much temps will rise due to CO2?

            @John Hughes

            You're right as far as you go -- CO2's increase to currently around 400ppm is due to human causes, and it has/will raise the temperature.

            HOWEVER, the calculations you quote predict only a small rise in temps. Even modern, observational-data-based estimates of how much temperatures will rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (the "climate sensitivity") give a value of around 1.5C per doubling. We expect the doubling from pre-industrial CO2 values to be achieved around the end of the 21st century; since we've already warmed about 0.85C from pre-industrial times (with no adverse noticeable consequences!), we can expect another 0.65C of warming by the end of the 21st century. No big deal.

            It's all in the IPCC AR5 "official science" report, so don't go calling them "deniers"!

            1. John Hughes

              Re: How much temps will rise due to CO2?

              1.5C is the low end of current thinking:

              there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C
              -- AR5

      5. DavidJB

        Re: Deniers?

        The land area of Bangladesh is increasing. It is part of a massive river delta system. Rising sea levels *might* in the long term leave 'Bangladesh under water', but we are not seeing it yet.

      6. ITfarmer

        Re: Deniers?

        "What are deniers waiting for? Bangladesh under water...? Because we're headed there."

        Just what are you going on about ?

        The Earth has lost and reformed Ice caps many, many times since it was formed - there will someday be ice sheets over most of Europe and North America will get a massive volcanic eruption in Yellow Stone park.

        The seas will rise a bit - so what ? welcome to life on Earth.

    3. Leslie Graham

      Re: Deniers?

      Oh perleeese.

      The word denier dates from the 15th century and simply means 'one who denies'.

      Its shorthand for "people who persist in denying that global warming is happening, and primarily driven by human-emitted greenhouse gases, and is likely to be very disruptive, all in the face of an overwhelming consensus of expert scientific opinion, which in turn is based on a mountain of convergent evidence."

      That's sort of a mouthful, so "denier" will just have to do.

      The dictionary definition is equaly damning of deniers:

      "...Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions...."

      That definition fits climate change deniers to an absolute 'T'.

      There is simply no other word in the English language that is more apt.

      The attempt by deniers to falsely equate the term with the Neo-nazi holocaust deniers is disgusting. It is as cowardly as it is disingenuous.

      Though since the deniers have brought it up I have to point out that the evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz

      If the cap fits wear it and spare us your faux outrage.

      1. eesiginfo

        Re: Deniers?

        What dictionary did you use?

        Dictionary's do not write definitions in that manner.

        Try these definitions:

        Denialism: is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence. "Denialist" is pejorative.

        Believer: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What dictionary did you use?

          Downvoted for not managing to correctly pluralize "dictionary"

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019