Thread: Humans to blame for climate change - scientists

Humans to blame for climate change - scientists


Man-made emissions are largely to blame for climate change, according to new research. File photo / Alan Gibson

Climate scientists have delivered a powerful riposte to their sceptical critics with a study that strengthens the case for saying global warming is largely the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

The researchers found that no other possible natural phenomenon, such as volcanic eruptions or variations in the activity of the sun, could explain the significant warming of the planet over the past half century as recorded on every continent including Antarctica.

It is only when the warming effect of emitting millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from human activity is considered that it is possible to explain why global average temperatures have risen so significantly since the middle of the 20th century.

The study updates a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has discovered several new elements of the global climate which have been influenced by humans, such as an increasing amount of water vapour evaporating from the warmer oceans into the atmosphere and a corresponding increase in the saltiness of the sea.

"There is an increasingly remote possibility that climate change is dominated by natural rather than anthropogenic [man-made] factors," the scientists concluded in their study, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews of Climate Change.

Scientific observations based on temperature recordings on every continent, as well as thermometer readings on, in and above the oceans, leave "little room for doubt" that the earth is warming, but trying to attribute a cause for this global warming is not possible unless man-made activity in the form of carbon dioxide emissions is taken into account, the scientists said.

The review, led by Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, found the "fingerprints" of human activity on many different aspects of climate change, including the overall warming of the Antarctic recently documented for the first time by other researchers.

"The observations cannot be explained by natural factors," Dr Stott said. Since 1980, the Earth has warmed by about 0.5C and is now warming at a rate of about 0.16C per decade, with even higher rates at higher latitudes such as in the Arctic.

"The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate change. We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns," Dr Stott said.

"What we see here are observations consistent with a warming world. This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

He dismissed suggestions that variations in solar activity - the intensity of the sun - could explain warming patterns over the past few decades. If the sun was responsible then both the upper and lower atmosphere would be getting warmer, instead of just the lower atmosphere as predicted by computer models of greenhouse gas warming.

He also said more water vapour is evaporating into the atmosphere as a result of warmer oceans and this is driving the water cycle harder, causing wetter areas in northern latitudes such as Britain to get wetter and drier areas in tropical regions such as East Africa to get drier.

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."
- INDEPENDENT

Humans to blame for climate change - scientists - World - NZ Herald News



The last paragraph bears repeating and highlighting:

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

Unfortunately its really not viable to expect people to make up their minds based on scientific evidence, simply because that evidence (including mathematical modelling involving not only statistics but assumptions*) is too complex for ordinary mortals to decipher.

So we have to rely to a great extent on what the scientists tell us.

However, where that goes wrong is that scientists appear to have become partisan. Falling into one lobby or another in advance means that an element of predisposition shades their conclusions.


*and there have been cases of course recently of statistics being cherry picked and mathematical assumptions being subjectivised.

Can't wait for the incoming from the climate change denial group.............

Originally Posted by chassamui

Can't wait for the incoming from the climate change denial group

Climate change AND a thread started by Ant. This'll be a trainwreck

I find it amazing that people can believe 5 thousand years of deforestation, having reached crucial levels,( like 75% is gone? ) - and the last 100 years of massive of CO 2 and other emissions hasn't any effect on the the thin shell of gas we breathe.

People will only believe it when it happens to them, which of course is too late. Ho hum.

^funny how many believe in this Sh*te. Of course climate is changing that is the nature at work. Def nothing to do with man.

Apparently the last paragraph bears repeating and highlighting... Again:

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

there might be something to the rapidity of the change due to humans and their fucking up.
But to say that we are responsible for it to happen is horseshit.
It has happened before and even a couple of times before humans were even here, so what made it happen those times?

So that's why it has been so f..king cold this winter, it make sence since we have global warming everywhere.

Thanks for the info!

Originally Posted by vanfinkel

So that's why it has been so f..king cold this winter, it make sence since we have global warming everywhere.

Thanks for the info!

'Weather' and 'climate' are not the same thing- a relatively brief period like a single season is not an indicator either way- Australia has just had its hottest summer on record, but even that anecdotal example doesn't prove or disprove anything- look at the last 20 years, or the last 50- that is a telling period of time.

Average temperatures are up, ice is melting (entire communities in the Andes have lost their water supply due to lack of mountain ice)- something is going on- man has to be at least a contributor if not the main cause.

The problem may be that people no longer believe anything government tells them, or even go as far as to assume if the government says it is true it must be a lie. Can you blame them? I have to admit I don't know and I cannot make up my mind on this issue.

Originally Posted by MustavaMond

I find it amazing that people can believe 5 thousand years of deforestation, having reached crucial levels,( like 75% is gone? ) - and the last 100 years of massive of CO 2 and other emissions hasn't any effect on the the thin shell of gas we breathe.

,, immm probably took millions of years to make it possible for us creatures to survive on the planet and then we fuk it up in a heart-beat. What role did all the crude oil we've taken out have to play in it . When the poles have melted there will be nowt for the sun to reflect off And then but not least our lil animal friends can't wear sunglasses or use those special UV protective creams . After having cut down all their habitats to make some paper called the SUN Or to use as compost in the garden ,,,you know all the stupid things we do with wood. immmm. It's where all wealth comes from. Yet we put fuk all back. Could go on an on an on.Of course china and india are in the game now. Another 2 billion who want what we have.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Apparently the last paragraph bears repeating and highlighting... Again:

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

So....where is the evidence?

Because there wasn't much in that newspaper report. Just a series of statements.

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

However, where that goes wrong is that scientists appear to have become partisan.

Something that journalists would never do right?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Apparently the last paragraph bears repeating and highlighting... Again:

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

It aint scientific evidence, it's modeling, a very big difference.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Apparently the last paragraph bears repeating and highlighting... Again:

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

bullshit!
all bullshit!
if people made up their minds based on scientific evidence and FACTS that can be corroborated instead of scary-hairy-fairy theories that have NOT been proven, then all this bullshit will be seen to be just that:
bullshit!

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

So....where is the evidence?

Because there wasn't much in that newspaper report. Just a series of statements.

The same newspaper report that quite clearly references what the evidence is and exactly where it is.

Originally Posted by tsicar

bullshit! all bullshit! if people made up their minds based on scientific evidence and FACTS that can be corroborated instead of scary-hairy-fairy theories that have NOT been proven, then all this bullshit will be seen to be just that: bullshit!

Wait, let me see if I've got this straight...

Your rebuttal to a report from climate scientists and based on scientific evidence and testing is that it's bullshit based on theories, and not scientific evidence. Right, as you were then.

The human race will destroy this planet then it will either adapt, survive and move to another planet which it in turn will destroy or it will become extinct like the dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Man-made emissions are largely to blame for climate change, according to new research.

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by chassamui

Can't wait for the incoming from the climate change denial group

Climate change AND a thread started by Ant. This'll be a trainwreck

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Your rebuttal to a report from climate scientists and based on scientific evidence and testing is that it's bullshit based on theories, and not scientific evidence.

Is that the UN scientist guy, then?


Thanks, Ant. What a fun start to a TD round.

Originally Posted by dotcom

Pay no attention to that giant nuclear reactor that rises in the East every morning. That has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING. The debate is settled.

So the sun is the only factor that contributes to the Earth's temperature? If that were the case, temperatures could be predicted the same way that tide tables and sunrises and sunsets are predicted- they aren't, though- they vary from day-to-day (yes, variations in the Earth's orbit cause the seasons, but that's not the same thing).

There are other factors that hold the heat in (the same way the interior of your car is hotter than the ambient outside temperature after you park it in the sun for a while)- why is the average surface temperature of Venus higher than that of Mercury, even though it's further from the sun? Because it has an atmosphere that has a high proportion of greenhouse gases (Mercury has no atmosphere at all).

Mankind dumps a lot of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere- is the rise in global temperatures over the last century a coincidence? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

So the sun is the only factor that contributes to the Earth's temperature? If that were the case, temperatures could be predicted the same way that tide tables and sunrises and sunsets are predicted- they aren't, though- they vary from day-to-day (yes, variations in the Earth's orbit cause the seasons, but that's not the same thing). There are other factors that hold the heat in (the same way the interior of your car is hotter than the ambient outside temperature after you park it in the sun for a while)- why is the average surface temperature of Venus higher than that of Mercury, even though it's further from the sun? Because it has an atmosphere that has a high proportion of greenhouse gases (Mercury has no atmosphere at all). Mankind dumps a lot of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere- is the rise in global temperatures over the last century a coincidence? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it.

Now why can't people like Jet moron make sensible debate like this? Stick to merkin politics Jettie, and don't pretend you know anything about real important stuff.

Originally Posted by dotcom

Pay no attention to that giant nuclear reactor that rises in the East every morning. That has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING. The debate is settled.

I like that comment. Sometimes humor can be very intelligent.