Always bear in mind that science only knows what science knows AT A POINT IN TIME - science evolves (as it must do) and views change. Science just documents, it doesn't create (in as much as it can't create something that can't be created - if that makes sense).
My bug bear is scientists talking as if they are at the pinnacle of knowledge and that their view then is immutable. 'Standing on the shoulders of giants' has two meanings.
You talk as if Scientific knowledge is merely fashion, which changes randomly with time, whereas it actually moves forward and builds on existing knowledge. The idea that the Earth is round will never be disproved, nor will the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. These 'views' are immutable because they are demonstrable facts. That is why we can be confident that reducing CO2 emissions will slow down global warming.
I must admit I haven't looked at the CO2 data, but we know the planet goes through cycles - hot/cold interchange, poles move, magnetic fields alter and develop holes. All this is known. Mini ice ages as recent as the 18th Century - mini warm peiods in medieval times. What are the 'normal' planetary cycles? Over what periods? What sun cycles?
But what I would say, is that if CO2 is thought to be the culprit (which appears to be the current scientific thought) behind any warming. then tackle it - as long as by tackling it, another 'effect' isn't being created that someone else will have to deal with. If it turns out that CO2 wasn't the cause, then what the heck. Cleaner energy seems like a win win - although I haven't seen how people propose to deal with all the batteries from 'n' million cars, homes etc.
@Lyn both of the linked articles are opinion pieces. In wondering what to believe I would stick as closely as possible to hard core data as you can. As little spin, polemic and emotive hyperbole as possible. Good quality, expert sources of info are vital. Look for references that offer citations for their stats so you can check them up and follow the data trail through.
Can you tell from the data though? Isn't the CO2 issue like 'the weather' in as much as you need something to 'model' the data? And what you can't tell is if there's some other 'agent' that you don't have data for that is having an effect?
So doesn't this end up with a 'trust' issue? IE the scientists say that CO2 is going up (can be proved or not) and that warming is occurring (can be proved or not) - they then say there is a correlation between CO2 and warming based on a model. It's that last bit that is the 'trust' isn't it?
Much the same as the weather. There is base data that says where highs/lows are/were - where humidity is high/low - and then the models say where there weather is going. You either trust the model or not - and trust that they have included all the factors that may affect the model (such as volcanoes, bush fires, solar flares,weak point in magnetic fields, sea currents...blah).
Agrre agree with you Steve, add to the list, half the worlds on fire, tyres burnt for the protest of it, I don’t take any notice of any of it, I do what I do because it suits me to live very frugally, that’s why I don’t have any refuse waste, I do have oil fired heating but the boiler runs at 98% efficiency because I have it serviced every year so cost is minimal. I don’t read any of those scientific links, just googled for this thread. I also Googled about wetlands, Giving off methane, but if they want to dam rivers and make more, Who am I to argue. Now they’re mining on the ocean bed, maybe more methane release, over millions of years it’s always been an angry planet, things won’t change.
Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor.
Isn't the CO2 issue like 'the weather' in as much as you need something to 'model' the data?
No and yes.
The way that science makes progress is by thesis + experiment + publication + peer review + peer testing. If all the scientists carrying out a particular test get the same results, concur that there are no other explanations for that result other than the primary thesis and are not able to 'break' the test by changing parameters or methods to try to disprove or undermine the results then the scientific community accepts that as a fact and moves on. This process can take quite a long time with some complex physics, but with reasonably simple chemistry, it is often not disputed for long. We know what water is, for example - its chemical constituents. There was a time when it wasn't known and so some of its properties and behaviours were a puzzle. But having cracked the 'code', there have never been any revisions to the information, it's a simple fact.
That carbon dioxide causes atmospheric warming is a fact in the same way. It can be easily tested and proven https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/global-warming This is the easy bit. So in answer to your central question, you don't have to trust that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric warming. It's a chemical certainty and you can prove it yourself at home if you want.
The dispute/debate that the climate warming deniers have played up has not been about the process, but about the source - the relative impacts of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels as opposed to from volcanos and ocean current cycles.
The modelling required to work that out is, as you say, far less finite because we fundamentally don't understand some aspects of weather. But on the other hand, we do have around 200 years of measured climate data in the UK, with relatively detailed records of historic events around the world such as volcanic eruptions, solar cycles and El Nino type events for the whole of that period. The models are 'proven' by trying to 'forecast' backwards. If a model is able to take the base data and accurately predict the weather we already know has happened, then the confidence in that model's future forecasts rises. There is always a lingering doubt, because it's an empirical experiment and there could be factors as yet unknown that might be making us think we know the answer where we actually haven't quite grasped something.
Work on these models has been ongoing for the last 3 decades or so, as computing power has increased exponentially. At one stage, there was debate, but as the models have been tested and 'broken' and re-run and adapted, and more and more independent scientists have found the same results, confidence that the climate we have now cannot be explained by geological and other natural events has grown to the point where it is now accepted as a fact. And believe me, there has been a lot of time and money thrown at trying to DISPROVE it - so you should 'trust' this. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is known to be man made. The link between atmospheric temperature and CO2 is not disputed. So much we can say now is certain - this is a shoulder on which we can now stand.
Forecasting what will happen next and whether reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce the warming and how fast is the part where there is still discussion and work ongoing. Understanding of the 'tipping points' as they've come to be known is still quite low but their potential effects are vast. The Paris agreement seeks to stop us finding out just how much we don't know.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I agree with you @Lyn. We can all do a small bit - and if all that does is make us feel less guilty, then so be it. I have a diesel car. However - it's relatively new and probably creates less crap than my previous car. I don't endlessly buy new clothes and shoes, so I don't have loads of stuff to go for recycling/ dumping. I re use and recycle as much as I can, of everything. I don't fly - have probably flown less in my whole life than my sister has in three years, so I'm damned if I should feel guilty when I drive three hour to do a hill. I eat less red meat than I used to - for daughter's health reasons, but if I fancy some I'll have it. I don't buy tons of food that doesn't get eaten either. I keep myself as healthy as I can, I dont drink or smoke and I exercise every day, so I'm, hopefully, less of a burden on our NHS than those who take no responsibility at all.
I honestly believe most people in this country do the same as I do - their level best. Unless the countries [or those who run them] which don't give a toss, change their ways, nothing will really be resolved. It's also interesting how the meat industry is the current target. Have you seen the cr*p that the fishing industry chucks into the water? We never hear any outcry about that except when dead whales are opened up on beaches, and then it all magically goes away.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
I think we’re twins Fairygirl 😀 I’ve never had a passport. I don’t feel guilty popping to the pharmacy once a month for some pain killers, that will stop in January as they want me to drive to the hospital for them so that’s nothing from the NHS for me.
Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor.
Posts
I don’t read any of those scientific links, just googled for this thread.
I also Googled about wetlands, Giving off methane, but if they want to dam rivers and make more, Who am I to argue.
Now they’re mining on the ocean bed, maybe more methane release, over millions of years it’s always been an angry planet, things won’t change.
The way that science makes progress is by thesis + experiment + publication + peer review + peer testing. If all the scientists carrying out a particular test get the same results, concur that there are no other explanations for that result other than the primary thesis and are not able to 'break' the test by changing parameters or methods to try to disprove or undermine the results then the scientific community accepts that as a fact and moves on. This process can take quite a long time with some complex physics, but with reasonably simple chemistry, it is often not disputed for long. We know what water is, for example - its chemical constituents. There was a time when it wasn't known and so some of its properties and behaviours were a puzzle. But having cracked the 'code', there have never been any revisions to the information, it's a simple fact.
That carbon dioxide causes atmospheric warming is a fact in the same way. It can be easily tested and proven https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/global-warming
This is the easy bit. So in answer to your central question, you don't have to trust that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric warming. It's a chemical certainty and you can prove it yourself at home if you want.
The dispute/debate that the climate warming deniers have played up has not been about the process, but about the source - the relative impacts of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels as opposed to from volcanos and ocean current cycles.
The modelling required to work that out is, as you say, far less finite because we fundamentally don't understand some aspects of weather. But on the other hand, we do have around 200 years of measured climate data in the UK, with relatively detailed records of historic events around the world such as volcanic eruptions, solar cycles and El Nino type events for the whole of that period. The models are 'proven' by trying to 'forecast' backwards. If a model is able to take the base data and accurately predict the weather we already know has happened, then the confidence in that model's future forecasts rises. There is always a lingering doubt, because it's an empirical experiment and there could be factors as yet unknown that might be making us think we know the answer where we actually haven't quite grasped something.
Work on these models has been ongoing for the last 3 decades or so, as computing power has increased exponentially. At one stage, there was debate, but as the models have been tested and 'broken' and re-run and adapted, and more and more independent scientists have found the same results, confidence that the climate we have now cannot be explained by geological and other natural events has grown to the point where it is now accepted as a fact. And believe me, there has been a lot of time and money thrown at trying to DISPROVE it - so you should 'trust' this. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is known to be man made. The link between atmospheric temperature and CO2 is not disputed. So much we can say now is certain - this is a shoulder on which we can now stand.
Forecasting what will happen next and whether reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce the warming and how fast is the part where there is still discussion and work ongoing. Understanding of the 'tipping points' as they've come to be known is still quite low but their potential effects are vast. The Paris agreement seeks to stop us finding out just how much we don't know.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I have a diesel car. However - it's relatively new and probably creates less crap than my previous car.
I don't endlessly buy new clothes and shoes, so I don't have loads of stuff to go for recycling/ dumping. I re use and recycle as much as I can, of everything.
I don't fly - have probably flown less in my whole life than my sister has in three years, so I'm damned if I should feel guilty when I drive three hour to do a hill.
I eat less red meat than I used to - for daughter's health reasons, but if I fancy some I'll have it. I don't buy tons of food that doesn't get eaten either.
I keep myself as healthy as I can, I dont drink or smoke and I exercise every day, so I'm, hopefully, less of a burden on our NHS than those who take no responsibility at all.
I honestly believe most people in this country do the same as I do - their level best. Unless the countries [or those who run them] which don't give a toss, change their ways, nothing will really be resolved.
It's also interesting how the meat industry is the current target. Have you seen the cr*p that the fishing industry chucks into the water? We never hear any outcry about that except when dead whales are opened up on beaches, and then it all magically goes away.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
I’ve never had a passport. I don’t feel guilty popping to the pharmacy once a month for some pain killers, that will stop in January as they want me to drive to the hospital for them so that’s nothing from the NHS for me.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border