Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:06 PM Apr 2013

Why 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.



27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why it is difficult to prove anthropogenic climate change (Original Post) Harmony Blue Apr 2013 OP
Error: bad framing. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #1
There is no consensus on anthropogenic climate change amongst the scientific community Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #2
Nonsense. There is plenty of consensus. Hugabear Apr 2013 #3
Most of the "scientists" that dispute climate change are funded by the oil industry. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #6
This is not a RW talking point Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #14
Yes, it is a right-wing talking point Hugabear Apr 2013 #22
evidence (of AGW) is clear and persuasive. pscot Apr 2013 #4
There is certainly consensus. Rozlee Apr 2013 #8
You're right...99.99% is hardly a consensus joeybee12 Apr 2013 #24
Oh yes there is - what a pile of denier horseshit jpak Apr 2013 #26
Because it is happening over a very long period of time, and the human mind is not adept... slackmaster Apr 2013 #5
Temperatures we have been recording for a decent amount of time Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #18
If you want 100%, bona fide, irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change freethought Apr 2013 #7
Cause is irrelevant. randome Apr 2013 #9
Simple: it's not difficult. baldguy Apr 2013 #10
It is as difficult to prove AGW as it is evolution. joshcryer Apr 2013 #11
Evolution can be definitively proved Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #19
That has only recently happend. joshcryer Apr 2013 #23
This is scientifically illiterate denialism cprise Apr 2013 #12
Bingo! nt Quixote1818 Apr 2013 #13
That is my point Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #15
You don't know what you are talking about. Any of it. bemildred Apr 2013 #16
Science is a combination of induction and deduction Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #20
Science uses math, all the scientific evidence is inductive. bemildred Apr 2013 #21
Question: Is there a problem? Answer: YES Avalux Apr 2013 #17
BS - geologists measure changes in glacial mass all the time jpak Apr 2013 #25
As a geologist we are able to measure Harmony Blue Apr 2013 #27

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
1. Error: bad framing.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:30 PM
Apr 2013

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)
2. There is no consensus on anthropogenic climate change amongst the scientific community
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:37 PM
Apr 2013

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)
3. Nonsense. There is plenty of consensus.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:51 PM
Apr 2013

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)
6. Most of the "scientists" that dispute climate change are funded by the oil industry.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:59 PM
Apr 2013

Just the same as the scientists funded by the tobacco industry claiming that smoking was good for you.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
14. This is not a RW talking point
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:19 AM
Apr 2013

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)
22. Yes, it is a right-wing talking point
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:39 PM
Apr 2013

The only ones I ever really hear disputing man-made climate change are those on the far right.

pscot

(21,023 posts)
4. evidence (of AGW) is clear and persuasive.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:54 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.short

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)
8. There is certainly consensus.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:20 AM
Apr 2013

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.

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
5. Because it is happening over a very long period of time, and the human mind is not adept...
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:55 PM
Apr 2013

...at dealing with very long periods of time, very large numbers, etc.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
18. Temperatures we have been recording for a decent amount of time
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:27 AM
Apr 2013

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)
7. If you want 100%, bona fide, irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:15 AM
Apr 2013

then the problem has gotten so bad you're well beyond the point of no return.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
9. Cause is irrelevant.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:23 AM
Apr 2013

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)
10. Simple: it's not difficult.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:41 AM
Apr 2013

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)
11. It is as difficult to prove AGW as it is evolution.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:48 AM
Apr 2013

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)
19. Evolution can be definitively proved
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:30 AM
Apr 2013

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)
23. That has only recently happend.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:25 PM
Apr 2013

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)
12. This is scientifically illiterate denialism
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:47 AM
Apr 2013

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


Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
15. That is my point
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:24 AM
Apr 2013

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)
16. You don't know what you are talking about. Any of it.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:25 AM
Apr 2013

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)
20. Science is a combination of induction and deduction
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:35 AM
Apr 2013

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)
21. Science uses math, all the scientific evidence is inductive.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:41 AM
Apr 2013

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)
17. Question: Is there a problem? Answer: YES
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:26 AM
Apr 2013

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)
25. BS - geologists measure changes in glacial mass all the time
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:30 PM
Apr 2013

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)
27. As a geologist we are able to measure
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:02 PM
Apr 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why it is difficult to pr...