General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy it is difficult to prove anthropogenic climate change
Basically, what is hotly debated in the scientific community is that the IPCC climate change report coming out in 2014. It should offer results that show some anthropogenic influences on the global climate change and suggestions to mitigate. But, the biggest indicator to climate change, anthropogenic influence or not, would be sea level rise. Unfortunately, the most significant agent for sea level rise is glacial melting, and there is no way to measure the quanity of glaciers being melted along a contact surface given glaciers are huge. We simply do not have the technology that can go thousand of feet deep to record how much of the glaciers are melting with these contact surfaces on the bottom. Thus, it can be said that we do not have certainity if this is part of the natural cycle or this acceleration of glacial melting is caused by anthropogenic sources.
Without this certainity many of the suggestions (to mitigate global climate change) that will be in the IPCC climate change report are hard to impliment. Policy takes time to impliment at the local, state, and federal level (eg Clean Water Act). Without a definitve yes or no answer, most politicians in the U.S. will dabble on the edges on the topic of climate change, but non will dare go too deep into it. There is no political capital to do so, because the scientific community can not provide a defiinitive answer.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)You're spewing conservative framing.
The fact is that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that global climate change exists, that it's man-made, that its effect on us is very real, and very destructive, and will get far more destructive if it's not stopped.
The confusion comes from a concerted campaign by the Kochs and others in the fossil-fuel industry to sow FUD, dodge, delay, deny, pretend uncertainty, use campaign dollars to pressure politicians to equivocate, using the exact same lobbyists and consulting firms that the tobacco industry used to block action against them.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/05/scientific-concensus-stronger-than-scientists-though/
That's just one sample article that indicates that the scientific consensus is actually stronger than how the public perceives it.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)There is universal consensus that climate change is happening though. Fundamental problem is that sea level rise is greatly influenced by how much the glaciers melt, but we simply don't know. Glaciers are slow moving, but they tend to melt on the bottom of a contact surfaces thus that is how they drop of their deposits as they move along.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You're pushing right wing talking points by claiming there is no scientific consensus. The scientific community by and large does agree that climate change is caused by human activity. There may be a few fringe "scientists" pushing their agenda, but that hardly means there isn't consensus.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Just the same as the scientists funded by the tobacco industry claiming that smoking was good for you.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)All scientists agree that it has been a long time since the last glaciation period and we are in another cycle. What there is disagreement is on how much these anthropogenic influences affect this natural cycle?
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)The only ones I ever really hear disputing man-made climate change are those on the far right.
pscot
(21,023 posts)In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)There are 18 scientific organizations that put out statements stating that global climate change is due to man's use of fossil fuels. These include: The American Meteorological Association; American Geophysical Society; American Physical Society; American Association for the Advancement of Science; Geological Society of America; American Chemical Society; U.S. National Academy of Sciences; National Research Council of the National Academies; American Institute of Biological Sciences; American Society of Agronomy; American Institute of Physics. That doesn't cover international scientific agencies in Europe and other countries. The scientists that deny humans are causing climate change are few and marginalized. Most of them are connected to think tanks who have gotten grants from energy companies. Like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Foundation. That might sound unkind, but it's the ugly truth.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)jpak
(41,742 posts)yup
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...at dealing with very long periods of time, very large numbers, etc.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but you are correct that long term trends in the geological record are hard to fanthom a trend with such a small subset of data. Fortunately we as humanity have been recording sea level changes a lot longer than temperatures around the world. Still, while Co2 emissions is factor to the greenhouse effect, the largest greenhouse gas is still water vapor. Water vapor is often at its highest when glaciers are melting, and it is recorded in the geologic record as a result.
freethought
(2,457 posts)then the problem has gotten so bad you're well beyond the point of no return.
randome
(34,845 posts)The droughts are real. We need to do something about it. The only issues that matter is what we do and how fast we can do them.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)There's plenty of evidence that climate change is occurring, and that human activity - specifically: burning of fossil fuels - is to blame. Any claims to the contrary is propaganda from corporations who make their money by, guess what?: BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)If you're starting from unscientific concepts, you will never be able to get it. Creationists use the same arguments as denialists, false arguments, misleading data, and otherwise "appeals to emotion" to get their point across.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)as it requires an isolation of a species to evolvein one environment from another species located elsewhere. In fact, for humanity, languages tend to changed drastically when they are isolated as well and that is only thousands of years while evolution can be millions of years.
What can not be definitevely proved is if evolution is a gradual or punctual process.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Natural selection wasn't directly observed until the past century or so. Does that mean Darwin was wrong before that?
Regardless, CO2 has a thermal absorption and emission profile, and a simple climate model can be built based upon purely physical aspects of CO2. The only question then is whether clouds would be a positive or negative feedback. We have found that they are positive, therefore, we are fucked.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Your post simply re-phrases the denier rhetoric of "proof" as "certainty" and "definitive yes or no".
Science does not hinge on absolute, binary "certainty" -- it evaluates which theories are supported by the greatest evidence. You also completely ignore the Precautionary Principle here, and your assertion about glaciers being the prime indicator is wrong (ocean temperature is the most important by far).
http://skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Science isn't about a yes or no answer. But to the policy makers that is often what matters to them. Had you bothered to read my opening post you would have seen that.
Anyways, the IPCC 14 report is a very huge report (think War and Peace size), but the biggest factor towards sea level rise is glacial melting. How do we know this? There have been glaciation periods in the past that have subtantially changed the terrestial landscape and there are signs of regressions and transgression sequences found near coast environements.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Science is inductive, there is no such thing as "proof" in science, and no real scientist makes claims of "proof", it's not mathematics. A theory is supported by the evidence. Well-supported or weakly-supported, as the case may be. Anthropogenic climate change is well-supported. That's as good as it gets.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Anthropogenic climate change is controversial because there are lot of unknowns. This is why detractors can easily pick at it, because unfortunately it is true.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)First you collect the data, then you compute the statistics, then you see if the statistics match the theory. If they do, then that supports the theory. That's how it works.
It's not true because the math is correct, it's true because the evidence matches the math. The math summarizes the evidence, it does not dictate it.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Question: Can human beings, with our big brains, do something about it? Answer: YES
Getting lost in the weeds by debating cause or fault is irrelevant. There is a problem and we must mitigate if we are to save the human race.
It's really that simple.
jpak
(41,742 posts)They can even measure changes in the mass of the Greenland Ice sheet.
What a bunch of ignorant crap.
Yup
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)the edges of glacial masses or ice sheets as they shrink using satelite imagery. But just like any glaciation, the majority of the melting is along the contact surface on the bottom and we simply don't know. We can measure sea level rise reliably taking into consideration thermal expansion along with traditional methods. Not to discourage the hard work many have put into th IPCC report coming out in 2014, but it would be irresponsible fo the scientific community to not ask questions. Co2 is a big factor in green house effect but water vapor is even more so. The increase in water vapor and sea level rise is indeed related to glacial melting and it does increase global temperatures (along with decreased solar reflection with decreased glacial masses) that are all part of this feedback system that is still not fully understood.