The Science & Skepticism Thread

Yeah so what. It doesnt matter if the trend is slightly up or down over previous years, its just natural global variabilty.
 
Nod said:
In the Great Scheme of Things...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

And as for the 5 x CO2 levels... http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html (Note that Pete lives and works on or near the Jurassic coast...)
Click to expand...
Interesting article, thanks.

I was drawn to
"The higher CO2 levels [must] have [had] significant effects on the planet's climate, and its flora and fauna,"
And
"We are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth. We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural."

That sounds good, doesn't it? :(
 
Last edited:
What most studies seem to show is that we are probably having an effect on the climate but also that once we've gone, the chances are that the planet will survive - even if it's a barren wasteland populated by cockroaches and single celled organisms. By that time, we (as in the current populace rather than the whole species) will (with any luck!) be dead and buried/cremated/insert method of disposal of choice.

To paraphrase Horace (badly!) Seize the day before all the other bastards screw it up completely.
 
Interesting debate - let's try and inject a bit of science into it !
In physics it's often possible show a high confidence in a causal link - that is if you manipulate variable A it causes a change in variable B ( note the use of high confidences and not proven as most laymen would tend to think).
It was long suspected the smoking caused cancer but the causal link could never be established because of the ethics of experimenting on humans. It was only after millions (sic) of human deaths that it was widely accepted ( but not exclusively) that smoking was strongly correlated to cancer risk.
Now we have a similar problem with climate change. We can't establish casualty, we can only establish high correlation after the predicted events occur. So we are down to a more difficult problem of predicting correlation between CO2 output and dramatic climate change. The problem is can we establish a correlation before the event - or just debate and wait until becomes so obvious that there is a correlation but then perhaps too late to do anything about it ?
The result is argument - do you believe the arguments for and against and why ? Humans are successful because they are inherent competitive risk takers - just look at what is happening now ( not in the future). We rape our planets limited resources at exponential rates, we are polluting our atmosphere, land and oceans, we exist by feeding our expanding population on plant monocultures that give adapting insects and plant diseases every opportunity to cause mayhem, we have enough nuclear weapons on the planet to turn even the smallest population centres to rubble, 75% of antibiotics used today are fed to healthy cattle in order to put on weight despite the obvious fact that as a consequence pathogens are diversifying into more virulent forms at an alarming rate etc etc. We are risk takers, money grabbing, short sighted species yet capable of great love, compassion and vision. This is the ambiguity of the human condition.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Fox have had their mitts on the TV channel for a while. Control of the magazine is new.
Click to expand...

Aye....hence "expansion". ;)
The organisation is also no longer a not-for-profit outfit....so you're probably right with your suspicions :(
 
jbw said:
75% of antibiotics used today are fed to healthy cattle in order to put on weight despite the obvious fact that as a consequence pathogens are diversifying into more virulent forms
Click to expand...
They were discussing this on the radio the other day, and apparently British farmers don't do it, on the grounds that they are expensive to buy and would just be pouring money into something that they would get
no extra return from .. I have no idea if they speak the truth or not.
 
Cobra said:
They were discussing this on the radio the other day, and apparently British farmers don't do it, on the grounds that they are expensive to buy and would just be pouring money into something that they would get
no extra return from .. I have no idea if they speak the truth or not.
Click to expand...
It is true that we'll over 75% of antibiotics are used by vets or animal food industry.
James
 
jbw said:
It is true that we'll over 75% of antibiotics are used by vets or animal food industry.
James
Click to expand...


IIRC, even "organic" livestock can be (and is) given antibiotics as a prophylactic measure. Wouldn't want to bet against those drugs also having a weight gain side effect. Currently sitting on a pair of fairly potent antibiotics just in case my grumbling diverticulosis degenerates into full blown diverticulitis.
 
As an aside - there is a reasonably high correlation between humans given antibiotics, even only once, however young - and being over weight. I led to believe other variables need to be dismissed and isolated before they are truly significant but so far an interesting result.
James
 
jbw said:
As an aside - there is a reasonably high correlation between humans given antibiotics, even only once, however young - and being over weight. I led to believe other variables need to be dismissed and isolated before they are truly significant but so far an interesting result.
James
Click to expand...
But is it also possible that overweight people ( even very young people) are more susceptible or prone to conditions that require anti-biotics?
 
jbw said:
As an aside - there is a reasonably high correlation between humans given antibiotics, even only once, however young - and being over weight. I led to believe other variables need to be dismissed and isolated before they are truly significant but so far an interesting result.
James
Click to expand...

Evidence of said correlation please.
Serious request.... Not argumentative.
 
I'm no expert in this but my understanding that cattle are given small doses of antibiotics as it has the effect of increasing overall weight. The problem is that if you don't give a full dose then pathogens are not killed so can replicate and build up immunity to antibiotics. Then there is this concern about the effect of antibiotics ( even at full doses) may cause weight problems that extend through life. Anybody know the details who is better qualified than me ? Im just a physicist !
James
 
jbw said:
The problem is that if you don't give a full dose then pathogens are not killed so can replicate and build up immunity to antibiotics
Click to expand...
As we both know, that's how vaccines work, ( in this case, in reverse of course) the phrase a hiding to nothing springs to mind .
 
Cobra said:
As we both know, that's how vaccines work, ( in this case, in reverse of course) the phrase a hiding to nothing springs to mind .
Click to expand...
Yes of course - some vaccines use live but very much weakened bacteria and hence it promotes the growth of effective antibodies without risking infection of the subject. However, it's very different if you are under dosing antibiotics because those pathogens which are not killed by the weak dose, survive, replicate and pass on their immunity. This is could lead to zoonosis and possibly start a pandemic.
 
I came across this article on metformin the other day and it's use to help people stop ageing

Link
 
simon ess said:
Surely though, this is a thread about science not about politics.
Click to expand...
Please not the title of the thread and this definition

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.

and all may become clear.
 
big soft moose said:
i8_GlobalTemp.PNG


there are natural ups and downs year to year but over the long term you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the trend (and before you say 'oh but thats only a degree or so' the point is a) that it doesnt require much, and b) if the trend continues upward it will get worse (and if the permafrost melts enough to release the trapped methane the increase will be substantial)
Click to expand...

The reason for that graph is easily explained.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...APeyqocwfU0Hl-M3db65AQ&bvm=bv.108194040,d.ZWU
 
Hm. A work of fiction to prove/disprove a graph.
 
nilagin said:
Please not the title of the thread and this definition

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.

and all may become clear.
Click to expand...

This ignoramus thanks you for imparting your wisdom and knowledge.

I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more patronising.
 
OldCarlos said:


Hadn't previously seen that.
Click to expand...

Me neither - I missed that. It makes an interesting read. Nice to see he said almost the same as me in that :-
“we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
I say almost in that I would say that prediction is possible but how significant or how robust it is is another matter.
I suppose one area of this debate we have not dealt with is what if we do implement CO2 control BUT also suppose all the climate change predictions are a load of rubbish - would reducing our reliance on burning truly massive amounts of fossil fuels be a bad thing just on its own right ? Lower consumption of fossil fuels would me they would last longer and give us more breathing space to crack the 'fusion' fuel problem. We nearly all agree the present nuclear fission reactors are a problem due to their highly toxic products. We need a very long extended period of fossil fuels to invest in the very high energy research of nuclear fusion. If we could extract the energy at a steady rate from hydrogen fusion into helium we would have abundant energy with zero toxic outcomes. ( for those that don't know hydrogen fusion is so energy rich & violent that nuclear reactions, to date, can only be maintained for a few fractions of a second before the containment blows itself apart - different from the present fission reactors which use Uranium & work at a nice steady rate yet have excessively dangerous toxic byproducts)
 
jbw said:
Me neither - I missed that. It makes an interesting read. Nice to see he said almost the same as me in that :-
“we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Click to expand...
He was quoting the IPCC and clearly doesn't agree with them (or you) as the rest of his speech was a climate prediction.
 
Cobra said:
As I said, for every argument there is a counter, I'm not gonna bother reading, because then I'll be obliged to google more proof, and you will counter.
And there we will be Ad nauseam till the end of time life is too short ;)
Click to expand...

Its a shame that you don't want to consider the counter argument. And I don't get that you will feel the need to go on forever looking for counter arguments regardless.

Surely a rational argument backed with evidence should convince you that the viewpoint of the quotes you have provided may be wrong, unless you have an almost religious belief in those arguments.
 
praxis said:
Yeah so what. It doesnt matter if the trend is slightly up or down over previous years, its just natural global variabilty.
Click to expand...

Lols at the intelligent and well argued rebuttal!!
 
praxis said:
Yeah so what. It doesnt matter if the trend is slightly up or down over previous years, its just natural global variabilty.
Click to expand...

exactly - over a few years - however over a long period of time it is clear that although average temps vary up and down with natural variability the basic trend is upwards - as I said the ability to read a graph is pretty key if you expect to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion

Arguing that 2012 was colder than 2011 so the earth isnt warming just indicates that you don't understand the difference between a long term trend and short term fluctuations - its like the other denier favorite "GW can't be happening because its cold outside" which shows a lack of understanding of the term 'average'
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
exactly - over a few years - however over a long period of time it is clear that although average temps vary up and down with natural variability the basic trend is upwards - as I said the ability to read a graph is pretty key if you expect to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion

Arguing that 2012 was colder than 2011 so the earth isnt warming just indicates that you don't understand the difference between a long term trend and short term fluctuations - its like the other denier favorite "GW can't be happening because its cold outside" which shows a lack of understanding of the term 'average'
Click to expand...


Over a long period of time, the trend is still downwards...
 
Nod said:
Over a long period of time, the trend is still downwards...
Click to expand...

I think you may be looking at the 5,000 year trend. That does look downwards - excepting the last 100 years where there has been a dramatic increase that reverses the previous 5,000 years decrease.
 
Nod said:
Over a long period of time, the trend is still downwards...
Click to expand...

The trend since 1850 is sharply upward , as phil says over a long period before that the trend was downward until it reversed.... do we really think it was a coincidence that 1850 or thereabouts was also the start of the coal (and later oil)fired industrial revolution and a move away from agrarian living ?

the fact that in pre history it has been a lot warmer than it is now is true but irrelevant, because human populations in those periods were either non existent or much much smaller than they are now, and we cannot support the current population with a vastly warmed planet.

Its also worth noting that it was in the seriously hot period that the current coal and oil etc was laid down - this capture of CO2 from the atmosphere was one factor in reducing the global temperature - hence why burning that fossil fuel and releasing the co2 is leading to a rise.

It is also worth noting that if you look at the very long term (2 million years) when global warming has happened before it has taken 5000 years to raise the average temp by 5 degrees - models based on the data from the last 30 years say that the predicted rate of change for the next century is 20x faster than that.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
 
Last edited:
No. My point is (still) that in the long term (human existence is very short term) the current rise is a slight blip in the graph. (Still) not saying it's a good thing, just something that we can do sod all about without a massive (and extremely unlikely) change to lifestyles etc..
 
OldCarlos said:
lol. Pot & kettle, spring to mind. :D
Click to expand...

Personally i'm happy to consider a counter argument if its based on science - so far all we've heard from the denier position is conspiracy theory , politics, and rubbish from the internet that shows a complete lack of scientific understanding
 
Part of the problem is looking at short time periods tell us next to nothing! Even 5000 yrs is but a blink of the eye in terms of the Earth, so trying to pin man's existence from the industrial age as THE reason is just bonkers.

What about the medieval warm period between 900 and 1300? Mans fault, or natural?

I remember in the early - mid 70's the `scientists` were saying we were heading slowly into the next ice age.
Then we had the Summer of 76 :cool:
Slowly since then we are now told we are heading in the opposite direction. (global warming)

Was it only about 5 years or so ago, when we had an extremely dry Summer (global warming blamed again) & the reservoirs were low? There were `scientists` saying the water table was so low it could take a generation for it to return to what it should be.
Within 2 years it was back to normal! (too much rain..........it must be global warming again)

Next time we get an unseasonable cold snap, or a bad Winter...............it will be because of global warming.


Approx every 100,000 years the Earth's climate warms up. These warmer interglacial periods, on average, seem to last around 15,000 - 20,000 years....... before eventually returning back to a colder/ice age climate.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Personally i'm happy to consider a counter argument if its based on science - so far all we've heard from the denier position is conspiracy theory , politics, and rubbish from the internet that shows a complete lack of scientific understanding
Click to expand...

tbh, I could say the same about everyone who has been conned into believing the opposite.
 
OldCarlos said:
Approx every 100,000 years the Earth's climate warms up. These warmer interglacial periods, on average, seem to last around 15,000 - 20,000 years....... before eventually returning back to a colder/ice age climate.
Click to expand...

did you see the point I made that while you are right that there have been previous eras of global warming (and no one who understands the science denies that) a) this time its happening about 20x faster than usual, and b) there is no way of feeding/housing a global population of 7.3 billion duruing a serious warm period (and last time there was a warm period the population was much smaller)

incidentally the medival warm period is thought to have been caused partly by a decrease in volcanic activity (less ash in the atmospher equals greatersolar flux at the surface) and partly by a change in ocean circulation currents in the mid atlantic bringing more warm water to northern hemisphere shores - the latter point highlighting that it may have been partly just localised warming rather than a warming in global temp .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top