"...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
Assuming, of course, such a thing actually exists.
Dinosaur flatulence may have warmed Earth
Giant herbivorous dinosaurs may have emitted sufficient methane to warm the Mesozoic climate, according to a new paper in Current Biology. The new theory, expounded in the article Could methane produced by sauropod dinosaurs have helped drive Mesozoic climate warmth? starts by advancing a theory that very large, long-necked …
-
-
Monday 7th May 2012 20:55 GMT Tim Parker
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
"Assuming, of course, such a thing actually exists."
Luckily, due to the magic of science, you don't have to assume this - huzzah !
Of course the degree to which this will effect things will be the subject of much impassioned debate - some informed, some not, some even from people whose interests are not actually vested in financial or political gain (perish the thought).
-
Monday 7th May 2012 21:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
"Luckily, due to the magic of some very hotly contended modelling, you don't have to assume this"
There, corrected it for you :D
Don't make the mistake of confusing science and climate modelling....one is informed guesswork, the other isn't.
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 08:01 GMT Tim Parker
skelband
"Luckily, due to the magic of some very hotly contended modelling, you don't have to assume this"
There, corrected it for you :D"
Hardly, unless you think all the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is solely due to computer modelling.. the statement I was addressing was
"...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
Assuming, of course, such a thing actually exists.
i.e. the existence of it, not the modelling.
"Don't make the mistake of confusing science and climate modelling..."
I don't - one is a field, the other is a technique - one widely used in many disciplines.
".one is informed guesswork, the other isn't."
If the former is referring to climate modelling then it's not all guesswork - you either understand that or don't know much about modelling - although it does strive to be informed.
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 08:38 GMT Some Beggar
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
"hotly contended modelling"
In science, the way one "hotly contends" a prevailing model is to provide empirical evidence that the model does not predict and to present a competing model that does predict it.
So ... where is this hot contender?
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 13:07 GMT Sean Timarco Baggaley
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
"In science, the way one "hotly contends" a prevailing model is to provide empirical evidence that the model does not predict and to present a competing model that does predict it."
Not quite. All you have to provide is empirical evidence that the model does not predict. You are not obliged to provide a competing model as well.
None of the existing models can predict known changes in the climate that have happened in the recent past, for which ample data already exists, so there's clearly more work to be done in refining them. It's possible that the Earth's climate is, in fact, too complex for us to be able to work out what all the variables are, in which case only basic trends over long periods of time may be predictable; detailed forecasts that tell us exactly who or what is to blame, and in which proportions, might not be possible for decades yet.
The notion that humanity has some influence on the Earth's climate is a perfectly logical assumption, but the constant alarmism and doom-mongering is not justified. There is insufficient data.
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 13:58 GMT Tim Parker
@Sean Timarco Baggaley
"None of the existing models can predict known changes in the climate that have happened in the recent past, for which ample data already exists"
Given such ample data, I look forward to your proof that there exist no models that can predict any recent changes.
"It's possible that the Earth's climate is, in fact, too complex for us to be able to work out what all the variables are, in which case only basic trends over long periods of time may be predictable; detailed forecasts that tell us exactly who or what is to blame, and in which proportions, might not be possible for decades yet."
Knowing all the variables won't get you everything - I highly recommend reading up on physical modelling, non-linear systems, attractors and Poincaré sections in particular. Trying to predict bounds in the state map of the climate system is useful, as is the likelyhood (or not) of certain trends. Asking whether it's going to rain in June and how much of that rain is due to fossil fuel emissions in Belgium is obviously a no-go - I trust that's not the sort of "detailed forecasts that tell us exactly who or what is to blame, and in which proportions" you mention.
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 14:14 GMT Some Beggar
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
@Sean Timarco Baggaley
That's an awful lot of words to make a weak point of pedantry.
To describe the current consensus as "hotly contended" is fatuous. It is a deliberate and feeble attempt to sow doubt.
My apologies if you struggled to understand that point the way it was phrased in my original post. But feel free to answer the challenge and post some examples either of competing models or dramatic holes in the current ones.
(null points if you mumble something about poor code management at UEA)
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 21:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
"To describe the current consensus as "hotly contended" is fatuous."
I think this thread more than anything demonstrates that.
There is NO cross-the-board consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate warming is a scientific fact. There is hardly a strong consensus that the climate is actually warming regardless of the cause. For much of the years of massive industrial growth, there has actually been cooling.
That the climate changes: yes, it has since the dawn of time on this planet and is always likely to.
That we have an effect on the weather: it is possible.
That we have a sustained effect on the climate globally (and in terms of an increased temperature): maybe.
And I might also suggest, is it necessarily a bad thing if it is true? Maybe, maybe not.
Also, don't confuse the very different arguments of climate change and change directed by human activity.
-
Wednesday 9th May 2012 08:50 GMT Some Beggar
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
I think this thread more than anything demonstrates that.
Argument on an internet messageboard does not constitute scientific controversy.
There is NO cross-the-board consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate warming is a scientific fact.
Just plain wrong.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
-
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 22:44 GMT Sean Timarco Baggaley
Re: "...likely causes of anthropogenic climate change."
"That's an awful lot of words to make a weak point of pedantry."
Good science is about disproving a hypothesis. That's why scientists gibber on about "falsifiability" and the like. The more tests bounce off your hypothesis, the stronger it gets, until it eventually becomes an accepted Scientific Theory™.
Requiring that anyone who attempts to disprove a hypothesis must also provide an alternative theory is most emphatically not good science. Disproving the original hypothesis is sufficient as it still provides us with valuable new information: that the hypothesis is either completely wrong, or requires further work and refinement. This is still information worth knowing.
The disproving of a hypothesis—which is what most scientists actually do for a living—is therefore an entirely separate process from the proposal of alternative hypotheses.
Anyone who believes otherwise is not a proper scientist and their opinions may therefore be safely ignored.
If correcting your wildly inaccurate assertion is "weak pedantry", you really haven't met many pedants.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th May 2012 21:25 GMT Graham Wilson
So in the Mesozoic CO2's off the hook eh?
As breeding's before farting, reckon now's time to stop the former!
Incidentally, throughout most of the Cretaceous and across the boundary (65 Ma) a little into the Paleocene, temperatures were essentially steady (~25C) but CO2 levels actually dropped from about 2200 to 300 ppm (today-ish levels). Presumably the logic goes that it had to be CH4 which kept temperatures evenly high. Seems logical enough.
Ahhh, but hell the climate debate's getting increasingly boring. Wake me up when it's over.
-
Monday 7th May 2012 22:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Interestingly...
People forget oxygen never existed in the atmosphere until plants had photosynthesised enough CO2. Oxygen is so reactive it naturally forms rust and co2 where ever it's found.
It's not a long shot to say other animals changed the atmosphere too. Say oxygen breathing creatures and herbivorous. Then the next step is how much of a change in the atmosphere it is, and how much of a change this causes in temperature etc.
I have no idea if the change is tiny or massive or in between. But it's interesting to know it all does have an effect. :)
-
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 08:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Oh....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
There is carbon in methane. Methane is in the atmosphere in lower quantities. It is argues that it could have higher effects though. I think agriculture is a high producer to it. But at a quick guess methane breaks down quicker, so is easier to remover and less of a long term problem. It is a concern, but I can't think why it's less concentrated on in discussions off the top of my head. :P
Wiki shows we are doing better with out methane production currently. Perhaps everyone is holding it in?
-
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 08:46 GMT Robinson
Bollocks
In my humble opinion this "research" is yet more bollocks of the kind which seems to be accumulating rapidly as more research funding becomes available, due to the irrational scare that is AGW. I'm actually quite shocked that the researchers here chose to soil the underpants of their reputations with such idiotic speculations.
But such is science in this day and age. Nobody has any shame any more.
-
Tuesday 8th May 2012 13:47 GMT GrandpaChris
Arrogance & Methane & CO2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/megaphone_32.png
brings us to The Chart which nicely shows past equal to the present but does not not show human arrogance. Should the earth's ionosphere and atmosphere be changed by a 150 year history of warming our tents with oil based products!
What in nature have white men killed for the last 150 year using vast amounts of Arrogance & Methane & CO2?
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
