What's the scientific evidence for climate change?

[BrianNole09]

I don't know much about climate change and I'm just starting to read about it. If scientists agree almost unanimously that it's real, and the Republican electorate and leadership believe it's not real, then I know the scientists are right

So, what is the scientific evidence for climate change?

 

[Raglefant]

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

The problem I see with the climate change argument is that everyone wants it to be a right or wrong answer. That is, there is definitely global warming or alternatively there is no evidence of global warming or if there is it's just the natural ebb and flow of climate change over time and not man made. I don't think it really matters.

The issue is the risk associated with being wrong. If those who support climate change as true are wrong and we try to make changes to avert any consequences we are out some level of future global GDP growth. People will have less things because we spent money trying to avert a potential problem that was not real. On the other hand, suppose those who are adamant that climate change isn't real are in fact wrong and we do nothing. In that case we would have more goods and services in the short run but the in the long run the loss could be catastrophic.

 

[ICHawk-I]

I don't know much about climate change and I'm just starting to read about it. If scientists agree almost unanimously that it's real, and the Republican electorate and leadership believe it's not real, then I know the scientists are right

So, what is the scientific evidence for climate change?

The indirect evidence of it is the amount of money the oil companies (who own the GOP) pay to deny that it's real.

 

[BioHawk]

Try reading one of the other 67 threads on this from the past 4 weeks.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Better question, why can't the Climate changers save us?

 

[Joes Place]

I don't know much about climate change and I'm just starting to read about it. If scientists agree almost unanimously that it's real, and the Republican electorate and leadership believe it's not real, then I know the scientists are right

So, what is the scientific evidence for climate change?

See my posts in this thread on temperature/satellite records:
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/here-is-some-liberal-science-fiction-for-you.105294/

Information regarding the 'greenhouse' effect, which human emissions of CO2 are enhancing, dates back over 100 years, so we are not talking about 'new' science. We are talking about established science.

Post a note to naturalmwa to find a post I'd made regarding 'natural' forcings which is also a good explanation of what is presently occurring. I don't recall that thread, but he may have it linked/saved.

I can also explain the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) stuff to you, which is one of the GOP/denier 'talking points' claiming 'no warming since 1998'. Easily refutable when you look at the actual evidence.

 

[Lone Clone]

I don't know much about climate change and I'm just starting to read about it. If scientists agree almost unanimously that it's real, and the Republican electorate and leadership believe it's not real, then I know the scientists are right

So, what is the scientific evidence for climate change?

I don't know. This topic has come up once or twice here, and nobody has ever posted any charts or graphs.

 

[Lone Clone]

See my posts in this thread on temperature/satellite records:
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/here-is-some-liberal-science-fiction-for-you.105294/

Information regarding the 'greenhouse' effect, which human emissions of CO2 are enhancing, dates back over 100 years, so we are not talking about 'new' science. We are talking about established science.

Post a note to naturalmwa to find a post I'd made regarding 'natural' forcings which is also a good explanation of what is presently occurring. I don't recall that thread, but he may have it linked/saved.

I can also explain the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) stuff to you, which is one of the GOP/denier 'talking points' claiming 'no warming since 1998'. Easily refutable when you look at the actual evidence.

And there we have it. In the history of the effing planet, 100 years is not new to these guys.

 

[Joes Place]

And there we have it. In the history of the effing planet, 100 years is not new to these guys.

If you have nothing of merit to contribute or to ask, then why don't you refrain from posting on this topic. You have been proven wrong numerous times, and have simply trolled people trying to address honest questions.

 

[The_Joker13]

Climate change is a lot like politics, the hard liners have already made up their minds and nothing will convince them otherwise. Then you have people like myself that aren't sure as there seems to be evidence, or lack of, favoring either sides stance. The latter seem to be in the minority. I don't think we can refute what our technology tells us is happening now, but honestly it is a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things on this planet.

 

[Lone Clone]

If you have nothing of merit to contribute or to ask, then why don't you refrain from posting on this topic. You have been proven wrong numerous times, and have simply trolled people trying to address honest questions.

I'm amused by it.

 

[GarryO37]

Yes. Climate change is real, and you won't find too many who deny that even in the Republican leadership.

Where the argument comes from is in what is causing it. Conservatives,as do a lot of scientists, believe it to be a naturally occurring cycle of the earth or some other natural force like a solar spike and it is not man made.

This has caused the moon bats to start spewing that we are denying climate change because we don't believe it is man made. None of the evidence of climate change being man made is even remotely solid.

 

[Raglefant]

None of the evidence of climate change being man made is even remotely solid.

Well you stated that with such confidence, which I find impressive. Good enough for me.

 

[The Tradition]

My issue is the ridiculous speculation that the media runs with. Climate change is going to cause all these bad things to happen. A warming world will obviously not be all bad. There will be some benefits, but the climate orthodoxy won't allow any such discussion. The most they'll admit is stuff like "climate change makes poison ivy grow better."

 

[GarryO37]

Well you stated that with such confidence, which I find impressive. Good enough for me.

Is that all it took?

 

[Raglefant]

Is that all it took?

Yes. Trump 2016.

 

[GarryO37]

Yes. Trump 2016.

Is that who you are voting for?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yes. Climate change is real, and you won't find too many who deny that even in the Republican leadership.

Where the argument comes from is in what is causing it. Conservatives,as do a lot of scientists, believe it to be a naturally occurring cycle of the earth or some other natural force like a solar spike and it is not man made.

This has caused the moon bats to start spewing that we are denying climate change because we don't believe it is man made. None of the evidence of climate change being man made is even remotely solid.

Other than being 100% incorrect, you're spot-on. There is no natural forcing agent that can account for the rise in temperature seen. There are no scientists...not one...who have proposed any theory for a natural warming that can account for the what's being measured and withstand peer review. As always with the "wing-nuts"...since we're resorting to that level of discussion...YOU saying it's so doesn't make it so. Go to the literature and find your "natural force" if you think otherwise.

 

[Raglefant]

Is that who you are voting for?

No.

 

[GarryO37]

Other than being 100% incorrect, you're spot-on. There is no natural forcing agent that can account for the rise in temperature seen. There are no scientists...not one...who have proposed any theory for a natural warming that can account for the what's being measured and withstand peer review. As always with the "wing-nuts"...since we're resorting to that level of discussion...YOU saying it's so doesn't make it so. Go to the literature and find your "natural force" if you think otherwise.

Yep. It's almost as ridiculous as trying to pass off the past 100+ years of data as irrefutable when the past 5 million years of data gathered through core samples says otherwise. Right?

 

[GarryO37]

No.

Then why did you post Trump 2016?

 

[artradley]

My issue is the ridiculous speculation that the media runs with. Climate change is going to cause all these bad things to happen. A warming world will obviously not be all bad. There will be some benefits, but the climate orthodoxy won't allow any such discussion. The most they'll admit is stuff like "climate change makes poison ivy grow better."

This is a legitimate issue. Stories about climate change are inevitably misleading and inflammatory, causing people who deny climate change to argue against media representations more so than the actual science. How often have we seen somebody say "In the 70's they thought we were entering an Ice Age" when, in fact, that was a single magazine article that quoted a couple of scientists about a theory that was based on reasonable evidence but which never was accepted as true in the scientific community?

The truth is the "Greenhouse Effect" is absolutely real. And the data indicates that the planet has been warming since the dawn of the industrial age, which means that correlation probably equals causation. The questions are how much warming do we foresee in the future, and how bad would the affects be?

The only way to predict this is through computer models, which obviously aren't perfect and can vary widely based on a few changes in the inputs. Just reading sober stories on the subject, I get the impressions that the vast majority of scientists see the future as being anywhere between "pretty disastrous" to "kind of a pain in the West but pretty disastrous in third world areas."

There is room for sober debate on the subject, but unfortunately the conversation tends to center on whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite and if scientists are hoaxing us in order to get grant money. Look at people like Clone, who is completely ignorant on the subject and unschooled in science -- but who responds to somebody like JoesPlace with schoolyard taunts. This isn't much different than what we see among our politicians.

 

[Raglefant]

Then why did you post Trump 2016?

I don't even remember typing that! Wow. What a confident leader, now I might vote for him.

 

[Joes Place]

Conservatives,as do a lot of scientists, believe it to be a naturally occurring cycle of the earth or some other natural force like a solar spike and it is not man made.

This has caused the moon bats to start spewing that we are denying climate change because we don't believe it is man made. None of the evidence of climate change being man made is even remotely solid.

Not even remotely correct. Go Google up what the solar output data look like for the past 70 years - we are in a SOLAR LULL, which CANNOT explain the warming.

I'll ask for the hundredth time here - WHAT IS THE 'NATURAL' FORCING if it is NOT manmade? That is NOT a difficult science question to address if you have the data to back it up. Where is the data?

 

[Joes Place]

Yep. It's almost as ridiculous as trying to pass off the past 100+ years of data as irrefutable when the past 5 million years of data gathered through core samples says otherwise. Right?

Only the paleo data DOES NOT say 'otherwise'; it shows us what the natural forcings in the past were. And NONE of those are currently in flux at all.

 

[Joes Place]

This is a legitimate issue. Stories about climate change are inevitably misleading and inflammatory, causing people who deny climate change to argue against media representations more so than the actual science. How often have we seen somebody say "In the 70's they thought we were entering an Ice Age" when, in fact, that was a single magazine article that quoted a couple of scientists about a theory that was based on reasonable evidence but which never was accepted as true in the scientific community?

The truth is the "Greenhouse Effect" is absolutely real. And the data indicates that the planet has been warming since the dawn of the industrial age, which means that correlation probably equals causation. The questions are how much warming do we foresee in the future, and how bad would the affects be?

The only way to predict this is through computer models, which obviously aren't perfect and can vary widely based on a few changes in the inputs. Just reading sober stories on the subject, I get the impressions that the vast majority of scientists see the future as being anywhere between "pretty disastrous" to "kind of a pain in the West but pretty disastrous in third world areas."

There is room for sober debate on the subject, but unfortunately the conversation tends to center on whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite and if scientists are hoaxing us in order to get grant money. Look at people like Clone, who is completely ignorant on the subject and unschooled in science -- but who responds to somebody like JoesPlace with schoolyard taunts. This isn't much different than what we see among our politicians.

It's actually much more black/white than what you've stated.

We KNOW we are altering the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is irrefutable. We are on pace to double the CO2 levels; what is in question is how much temperature rise will occur in response to that doubling. The 'low end' estimates are +1.5 to 2°C; but as we are already seeing over half that amount in barely a century-and-a-half, that is very likely an underestimate, as it can take the climate 1000-5000 years to fully adjust.

The high end estimates are >+4°C. That level of warming would absolutely result in catastrophic changes to our way of life. It will ultimately raise sea levels by many many meters, and will dramatically alter where we can grow food. And the scariest scenario is that we wipe out the plankton and microscopic sea creatures with ocean acidification, which are the bedrock of the food chain for ocean life. Disruption on that level would literally wipe out food supplies for billions of people.

A prudent 'risk management' approach would be to outright ELIMINATE the possibility of anything >+2°C change to the global temperatures, because once we pass that, we enter into fairly risky territory for our descendants. But right now, the science CANNOT rule out that as a potential outcome. We SHOULD be investing the money and effort to KNOW we cannot alter the planet that much, rather than just 'guess' that everything will be fine.

 

[GarryO37]

Only the paleo data DOES NOT say 'otherwise'; it shows us what the natural forcings in the past were. And NONE of those are currently in flux at all.

No. It shows the earth has been going through extreme climate change spikes and drops over the past oh.... 1-2 million years or so. The same as we are currently experiencing.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

Although siding with man-made climate change probably aligns more with my social political beliefs there no way I can convince myself to rely on such a small data set to make an argument. The earth is getting hotter, yes. It is also 5 billion years old and there are unlimited variables so how can you only look at a few decades worth of data? There are many other perfectly acceptable explanations in addition to "its our fault". The whole movement seems disingenuous and politically driven to me.

Now excuse me while I use my truck to pull my big block non-cat boat a few hundred miles so I can unleash 70 mph of global warming into the watershed.

 

[Raglefant]

No. It shows the earth has been going through extreme climate change spikes and drops over the past oh.... 1-2 million years or so. The same as we are currently experiencing.

That doesn't sound like a theory Joe, it sounds like a fact! Check mate?

 

[Joes Place]

No. It shows the earth has been going through extreme climate change spikes and drops over the past oh.... 1-2 million years or so. The same as we are currently experiencing.

Wrong again.

Paleo data shows us WHAT caused the changes (volcanic activity, leading to massive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, identified by ancient air trapped in ice, or other rock formations), solar output variations (again, identified by isotope variations in certain minerals), Milankovitch cycles (identified by Earth's precession around the sun with respect to other planet orbits).

Those are just 3 off the top of my head here. And exactly ZERO of them are changing right now. You can look it up. Climate and global temperatures cannot just 'change' without something pushing them. It's like your car sitting on level pavement with no wind or any power source just magically starting to move along at 5 or 10 mph - SOMETHING has to be powering it or causing it to move.

NO SCIENTIST has identified what is causing the warming over the past 150 years- there is no natural mechanism causing the change. The ONLY variable that has changed is CO2 levels, directly created by human emissions. And we KNOW we are causing that change, because the isotopes of carbon from burned fossil fuels are DIFFERENT from the isotopes in 'terrestrial' carbon. We can see that ratio changing with more fossil fuels being emitted.

So making the assertion that 'the climate has always changed so we can't be the cause now' is the equivalent of saying 'there is no such thing as homicide, because people have been dying of natural causes for thousands of years'. Neither claim makes any sense.

 

[Joes Place]

There are many other perfectly acceptable explanations in addition to "its our fault".

OK, what are they?

 

[naturalmwa]

Wrong again.

Paleo data shows us WHAT caused the changes (volcanic activity, leading to massive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, identified by ancient air trapped in ice, or other rock formations), solar output variations (again, identified by isotope variations in certain minerals), Milankovitch cycles (identified by Earth's precession around the sun with respect to other planet orbits).

Those are just 3 off the top of my head here. And exactly ZERO of them are changing right now. You can look it up. Climate and global temperatures cannot just 'change' without something pushing them. It's like your car sitting on level pavement with no wind or any power source just magically starting to move along at 5 or 10 mph - SOMETHING has to be powering it or causing it to move.

NO SCIENTIST has identified what is causing the warming over the past 150 years- there is no natural mechanism causing the change. The ONLY variable that has changed is CO2 levels, directly created by human emissions. And we KNOW we are causing that change, because the isotopes of carbon from burned fossil fuels are DIFFERENT from the isotopes in 'terrestrial' carbon. We can see that ratio changing with more fossil fuels being emitted.

So making the assertion that 'the climate has always changed so we can't be the cause now' is the equivalent of saying 'there is no such thing as homicide, because people have been dying of natural causes for thousands of years'. Neither claim makes any sense.

You are a very patient man and I'm glad you post here.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yep. It's almost as ridiculous as trying to pass off the past 100+ years of data as irrefutable when the past 5 million years of data gathered through core samples says otherwise. Right?

No idea what you're talking about. I suspect you have no idea, as well. Exactly what is it that you think the paleo-data says?

 

[The Tradition]

We KNOW we are altering the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is irrefutable. We are on pace to double the CO2 levels; what is in question is how much temperature rise will occur in response to that doubling. The 'low end' estimates are +1.5 to 2°C; but as we are already seeing over half that amount in barely a century-and-a-half, that is very likely an underestimate, as it can take the climate 1000-5000 years to fully adjust.

The high end estimates are >+4°C. That level of warming would absolutely result in catastrophic changes to our way of life. It will ultimately raise sea levels by many many meters, and will dramatically alter where we can grow food. And the scariest scenario is that we wipe out the plankton and microscopic sea creatures with ocean acidification, which are the bedrock of the food chain for ocean life. Disruption on that level would literally wipe out food supplies for billions of people.

A prudent 'risk management' approach would be to outright ELIMINATE the possibility of anything >+2°C change to the global temperatures, because once we pass that, we enter into fairly risky territory for our descendants. But right now, the science CANNOT rule out that as a potential outcome. We SHOULD be investing the money and effort to KNOW we cannot alter the planet that much, rather than just 'guess' that everything will be fine.

See above for unsupported gloom and doom predictions and estimates, instead of scientific observations.

In any case, there is absolutely no proof that this alleged trajectory would change even if we cut carbon emissions to zero tomorrow (which is of course impossible).

Furthermore, if something should happen that causes global cooling (asteroid strike, supervolcano eruption, nuclear winter, etc.), a warmer baseline will mitigate that disaster somewhat.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

See above for unsupported gloom and doom predictions and estimates, instead of scientific observations.

In any case, there is absolutely no proof that this alleged trajectory would change even if we cut carbon emissions to zero tomorrow (which is of course impossible).

Furthermore, if something should happen that causes global cooling (asteroid strike, supervolcano eruption, nuclear winter, etc.), a warmer baseline will mitigate that disaster somewhat.

In the universe of dumb thing you post, this might be the topper. Congrats. Well done.

 

[The Tradition]

In the universe of dumb thing you post, this might be the topper. Congrats. Well done.

And yet, you manage to top it by resorting to an ad hominem attack instead of telling us why you think this argument is "dumb".

 

[Joes Place]

My issue is the ridiculous speculation that the media runs with. Climate change is going to cause all these bad things to happen. A warming world will obviously not be all bad. There will be some benefits, but the climate orthodoxy won't allow any such discussion. The most they'll admit is stuff like "climate change makes poison ivy grow better."

I agree that the media coverage is poor.

But there is ample peer-reviewed evidence that we are very likely to incur significant and expensive downsides with warming temperatures. +1.0°C would probably not create major issues; we are on pace for >2.0°C, and the simple fact that temperature increases are accelerating, and the effects of higher CO2 levels will take several hundred years to finally equilibrate, implies we are in for significantly more than 1.0°C, and could easily exceed 3°C in fairly short order. What makes the problem most insidious is that it takes hundreds of years for the full effects of our actions to manifest themselves. So, what we are seeing today is small potatoes compared with what is on the way for future generations.

 

[Joes Place]

And yet, you manage to top it by resorting to an ad hominem attack instead of telling us why you think this argument is "dumb".

It is dumb, because there is AMPLE PROOF that cutting emissions to zero WILL allow warming to level off. That is very concrete stuff, not merely speculation as you claim. Of course we cannot drop emissions to zero tomorrow; but we can start in that direction now, instead of waiting for another 50 years.

One thing we need to start doing NOW is re-vamping our electrical grids to handle greater power transmission - if we want to eliminate the internal combustion engine and replace it with something zero emissions, then ALL of the power currently supplied for cars, etc will need to come from somewhere else, and the power grid for electrics is one of the most obvious sources. But we cannot fix the grid in one year or five years; we need to invest in a decade-level plan to rework it, which will also spur investments in solar and wind to transmit energy from those sources to areas it is needed. The next gen grid will become to energy what the internet has become to information. But only if someone gets it built.

 

[The Tradition]

It is dumb, because there is AMPLE PROOF that cutting emissions to zero WILL allow warming to level off. That is very concrete stuff, not merely speculation as you claim. Of course we cannot drop emissions to zero tomorrow; but we can start in that direction now, instead of waiting for another 50 years.

That's odd... you climate clerics have been screaming about reaching the "tipping point" after which runaway warming will occur no matter what we do.

Were those predictions wrong?