Your views on climate change

[Keronians]

It is a shame that you cannot acknowledge that such such inaccuracies cast doubt where science should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.

Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

There is always doubt in science. You don't understand how it works, you want everything to absolute the first time out of the box. It just doesn't work that way. New data comes in, ideas change.

And Newton was right. It's just that we've found more detailed, more accurate ways of describing the universe. Newton himself said, "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. " Newton himself is one such giant, on whose shoulders modern scientists stand.

There is some doubt whether he was saying that out of modesty, or poking fun at his rival, who was short.

[Thalam]

It is a shame that you cannot acknowledge that such such inaccuracies cast doubt where science should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.

No, a few inaccuracies (which are acknowledged and corrected - that's how science works) do not make me doubt the entire field.

Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

Inaccurate. Newton was not "wrong", his laws still work perfectly well in normal circumstances, but begin to break down under special circumstances.

[Wilgrove]

In fact, I'm sceptical the world is even warming...I'm thinking more of a global cooling to come.

(Spoilered for space, see below)

Just to nick pick here a bit, but do you have anymore up to date graphs? 2004 was like, I dunno.....seven years ago.

Just saying.

[Arkinesia]

Algae-based biodiesel, switchgrass-based ethanol, search for a new alternative fuel for boats, and change to a mix of solar, wind, and nuclear power for electricity.

Now if we could just arse lawmakers into nudging it forward…

[Farnhamia]

There is always doubt in science. You don't understand how it works, you want everything to absolute the first time out of the box. It just doesn't work that way. New data comes in, ideas change.

And Newton was right. It's just that we've found more detailed, more accurate ways of describing the universe. Newton himself said, "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. " Newton himself is one such giant, on whose shoulders modern scientists stand.

There is some doubt whether he was saying that out of modesty, or poking fun at his rival, who was short.

That I did not know. Who was he making fun of? Leibniz? Hooke?

[Vellosia]

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

Proof that Newton's equations are wrong, s'il vous plait.

But, it seems no-one can even consider caution.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to decrease our carbon output and impact on the environment, just in case climate change is true, rather than risk the opposite?

I never argued against that. In fact, I am actually pro-sustainability, believe it or not.

Considering Einstein's equations - which replaced Newton's - produce slightly different answers than those of Newton, even on an everyday scale (if you go accurate enough), I think it is fair to say that Newton is wrong. And if you reject that, you don't understand how science works.

[Salandriagado]

search for a new alternative fuel for boats,

Put masts on 'em, use them whenever possible. Every boat I've ever sailed on will go faster under sail than under its engine anyway.

[Thalam]

Newton's laws of motion aren't wrong, they're inaccurate at obscenely high speeds. Similarly, you seem to be holding the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change to a much higher standard than that against it, leading me to believe your claims of only trying to be accurate are a lie.

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

In science a Law is simply the mathematical statement of a concept that works under the conditions in which it applies. Newton's laws begin to break down under conditions that are not similar to the ones they was formulated to work for.

Your problem is you want everything to be true and concrete, right now, all of the time, no exceptions. With that sort of attitude you might as well just give up trying to understand anything outside of religion, since we are always gathering new data and refining ideas and concepts.

[Vellosia]

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

In science a Law is simply the mathematical statement of a concept that works under the conditions in which it applies. Newton's laws begin to break down under conditions that are not similar to the ones it was formulated to work for.

Not true for Newton. All of Newton's 'Laws' are based on the concept of absolute space and absolute time - which is wrong. The inaccuracy of Newton's equations on the everyday level are so small they are irrelevant for virtually all purposes. But the inaccuracy exists, nonetheless.

[Salandriagado]

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

In science a Law is simply the mathematical statement of a concept that works under the conditions in which it applies. Newton's laws begin to break down under conditions that are not similar to the ones they was formulated to work for.

Your problem is you want everything to be true and concrete, right now, all of the time, no exceptions. With that sort of attitude you might as well just give up trying to understand anything outside of religion, since we are always gathering new data and refining ideas and concepts.

Ahem. Maths and religion.

[Xsyne]

Newton's laws of motion aren't wrong, they're inaccurate at obscenely high speeds. Similarly, you seem to be holding the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change to a much higher standard than that against it, leading me to believe your claims of only trying to be accurate are a lie.

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

But, it seems no-one can even consider caution.

On the everyday scale, Newton's equations give completely, 100%, accurate answers. If they didn't then we wouldn't have the problem we have, we could just use the errors to figure out an equation that works in every single circumstance.

[KludgeMUSH]

I am of the view that whatever influence humans may have on the climate, that influence is going to be short-lived at best, as the present behavior of human civilization dooms it for collapse within the next 30 years anyway. Either people radically change their behavior in that timeframe, or we run out of oil and civilization collapses anyway. As such, human-induced climate change is simply not a real concern: We're either going to stop doing it, or we're going to run out of fuel to do it with.

[Vellosia]

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

But, it seems no-one can even consider caution.

On the everyday scale, Newton's equations give completely, 100%, accurate answers. If they didn't then we wouldn't have the problem we have, we could just use the errors to figure out an equation that works in every single circumstance.

Hence Einstein, which holds for every circumstance (although some are suggesting that Einstein may be facing supplantation soon).

[Orangi]

Basically as we all know climate change is a real occurance...

That's what the world does.

But we didn't cause it.

[-Acadia]

I think the human input into global warming isn't as intense as some governments would have us believe. I support recycling and investment in green/renewable energies - but that's just logical. Who doesn't want to live in a clean world with energy for cheap from renewable sources?

But that said, I don't think human beings are to blame for the majority of CO2 and SO2 in the world. In 1991, Mt. Pinotubo in the Philippines erupted and expelled more CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere than mankind had for the 30 years prior to this eruption.

That said: the Earth goes through stages of warm and cold. Between the rise of Rome and the rise of the Tudors, the world went through a warmer-than-normal period. Likewise, between the 1500s and 1800s the Earth went through a cooler period called the "mini ice age". We're now reverting to passing through a warm period. Don't get me wrong, humans pumping gasses into the atmosphere probably isn't helping but it's certainly not the main cause.

[Xsyne]

I am of the view that whatever influence humans may have on the climate, that influence is going to be short-lived at best, as the present behavior of human civilization dooms it for collapse within the next 30 years anyway. Either people radically change their behavior in that timeframe, or we run out of oil and civilization collapses anyway. As such, human-induced climate change is simply not a real concern: We're either going to stop doing it, or we're going to run out of fuel to do it with.

If all emissions stopped now, we'd still see massive effects. Hell, if I'm remembering the numbers correctly we're looking at a one meter rise in sea level just from thermal expansion by the end of the century.

[Thalam]

But that said, I don't think human beings are to blame for the majority of CO2 and SO2 in the world. In 1991, Mt. Pinotubo in the Philippines erupted and expelled more CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere than mankind had for the 30 years prior to this eruption.

Really? My numbers say that Mt. Pinotubo released about 20 million tonnes of So2 into the atmosphere, while for example, in 1980 the U.S. released about 25 million tonnes.

[Xsyne]

I think the human input into global warming isn't as intense as some governments would have us believe. I support recycling and investment in green/renewable energies - but that's just logical. Who doesn't want to live in a clean world with energy for cheap from renewable sources?

But that said, I don't think human beings are to blame for the majority of CO2 and SO2 in the world. In 1991, Mt. Pinotubo in the Philippines erupted and expelled more CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere than mankind had for the 30 years prior to this eruption.

Got any numbers for that? I'm seeing a minimum of 17 megatons of SO2 for Pinotubo. The US alone appears to have released around 23.5 megatons of SO2 in 1990. I'm not finding any details on the amount of CO2 released, but I doubt it would be much more than all volcanic action over the period of one year, which is less than 1% of what humans release in a comparable timeframe.

That said: the Earth goes through stages of warm and cold. Between the rise of Rome and the rise of the Tudors, the world went through a warmer-than-normal period. Likewise, between the 1500s and 1800s the Earth went through a cooler period called the "mini ice age". We're now reverting to passing through a warm period. Don't get me wrong, humans pumping gasses into the atmosphere probably isn't helping but it's certainly not the main cause.

The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. It was limited almost entirely to the North Atlantic and the surrounding environs.

[Great Nepal]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
Earth is warming up, yes. But, it is natural... Temperature was higher than it is today, even less than 250 thousand years ago and it has kept fluctuating since birth of earth and it will do so.

[Thalam]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
Earth is warming up, yes. But, it is natural... Temperature was higher than it is today, even less than 250 thousand years ago and it has kept fluctuating since birth of earth and it will do so.

This is another fallacy, similar to the one saying that the overall contribution of greenhouse gases by humanity is small. Yes, the temperature in the past has been higher, and yes, the temperature naturally fluctuates. This does not in any way provide evidence that humans are not contributing to current warming, or that simply because the earth may not get as hot as it has in the past, that a rise of one or two degrees C will not be devastating for our current environment or way of life.

[1000 Cats]

Basically as we all know climate change is a real occurance...

That's what the world does.

But we didn't cause it.

We're contributing. What's with the whole black-and-white thing going here? "No, there is a natural warming and cooling cycle," or, "No, cows fart, thus humans are not impacting climate change in any significant way," seems to be the general consensus among anthropogenic climate change deniers. Even a small change caused by humans quite rapidly (as tends to be the case) can have some pretty major consequences. We know how much we're putting out, and we know how much of an effect on the greenhouse effect what the stuff we're putting out has. We know how long it's likely to have that effect for, too. It's just not something that can be denied on account of volcanoes and cattle.

[Siorafrica]

I'm 60% sure it's real. The deniers are fundamentalists and business people I would imagine and thus wouldn't admit it no matter how obvious it would be.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm highly sceptical of human-caused climate change.

In fact, I'm sceptical the world is even warming...I'm thinking more of a global cooling to come.

Too bad, the planet disagrees with you. So does nearly the entire scientific community.

[Wikkiwallana]

Saying that the human contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is relatively small is a red herring. The natural release of carbon dioxide is offset by carbon sinks. The human contribution pushes the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over that which natural carbon sinks can effectively handle, and is more than enough to cause significant environmental change.

Edit: To use an analogy, imagine you have filled up a bathtub with water to the very brim. Adding a gallon of water, a relatively small amount, will still cause it to overflow.

Don't forget, we are also destroying those carbon sinks and not replacing them.

[Thalam]

It's really sad that almost every response in this thread is some variation on "climate change isn't real" or "climate change might be real but people aren't causing it".

Scientific illiteracy is depressing.