Climate change at the poles IS man-made

independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-at-the-poles-is-manmade-980256.html

Scientists refute sceptics by proving that human activity has left its mark on the Arctic and Antarctic

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 31 October 2008

It is the first time scientists have been able to prove the link between the temperature changes in both polar regions are down to human activity and it also undermines climate sceptics who believe the warming trend seen in the Arctic in recent decades is part of the climate’s natural variability.

Let’s hope Barack can sort this out!

You know no one here who is a good Catholic will vote for Obama. In fact I doubt a lot of “bad” Catholics will vote for him. Instead of being controversial, why not say “Let’s hope the next president can figure it out.”

We are one country, the president is only the president of this country. We are the least polluting developed nation on earth. Let’s hope the rest of the countries learn to stop polluting and start living to the standards we have set for ourselves.

Finally it will be up to Congress, not the president to figure out what to do about this. Congress makes the laws, The judicial branch interprets the laws, and finally the president executes the laws. Whoever our next president is, there isn’t much he’ll be able to do on his own.

I wonder how did they eliminate all variables other than the influence of man? If they know all variables that play into the climate can the predict the weather precisely?

Is this a trustworthy source? above political and monetary influence?

I am profoundly skeptical of scientists on this matter in particular.

So much for a trustworth orginization that researches.

The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature. The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.

What about all the other times artic warming happened in the past?

I thought the denier talking point was that there was no warming.

"In both polar regions the observed warming can only be reproduced in our models by including human influences – natural forcings [increases] alone are not enough.

If their models are complete and accurately depict all that is going on then this might constitute proof. The claim of model perfection has to be assumed, however, and I’m not willing to concede that. This is essentially their argument:

  1. We adequately understand all of the significant factors affecting climate.
  2. Our models adequately reflect the interaction of all these contributors.
  3. Our models can be made to agree with observation only by including forcings that are not part of our model. Since our model includes all natural forcings, however much our model disagrees with observation can only be explained as man’s contribution.

I have no opinion on (2) but I have serious doubts that (1) is true.

Ender

If their models are complete and accurately depict all that is going on then this might constitute proof. The claim of model perfection has to be assumed, however,

Nonesense. All models are incomplete versions of reality. It is absurd to say that they must be perfect copies of reality to work. Countless scientific models have contributed to important advances in science, and not one of them was perfect.

This is essentially their argument:

  1. We adequately understand all of the significant factors affecting climate.

Show us that one. Checkable source, please. As you just learned, it’s not necessary to know everything to know something.

I have no opinion on (2) but I have serious doubts that (1) is true.

Strawmen rarely are.

No, the talking point is man-made global warming.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. I beleive the whole man-made issue is a hoax. And there are thousands of climatic scientist who agree…

Agreed.

True, they don’t have to be perfect but they need to accurately model reality and in the case of global warming models they assume an understanding of the climate that they haven’t demonstrated they actually possess. A model based on inaccurate assumptions is rarely useful. These models do not prove what they claim.

Ender

Put it this way; the last two cold fronts that came through were supposed to bring us lots of rain…and we barely got a drop. So, the same scientist who claim that they can determine exactly how climate works and that man is, indeed, the cause of global warming still can’t tell me when it’s going to rain. Waiter, check please!:slight_smile:

Barbarian observes:
Nonesense.

{sic}

Typo flame. Haven’t seen one of those in a while. :wink:

Barbarian continues:
All models are incomplete versions of reality. It is absurd to say that they must be perfect copies of reality to work.

True, they don’t have to be perfect but they need to accurately model reality

Since they have accurately predicted things like the warming of the atmosphere, and the increase in severe hurricanes in the North Atlantic, there’s a good reason scientists find them useful as predictors.

that’s the usual Global Warmin’ ™ strawman.

in the 15k years since the end of of the last ice age, what is now the mojave desert in southern nevada and southern california here has gone through dozens of lake-marsh-playa cycles, each cycle has seen more drastic climate change than anything current and none of which was cauesd by man.

The greenhouse theory requires that atmospheric warming precede surface warming but the data doesn’t show that this has happened. Yes, the data are controversial, but a possible explanation for why observational data doesn’t support the theory doesn’t qualify as proof that the theory (let alone the models) are right.

… the increase in severe hurricanes in the North Atlantic

Even as severe hurricanes increased in the North Atlantic they were decreasing in the eastern Pacific, but I’m sure there is a good explanation for why global climate change doesn’t seem to affect the climate globally. Also - just a guess here - I’m betting that the models created to predict hurricane activity in the North Atlantic were probably not the same ones used to “prove” that climate change at the poles was man made. Showing that model A is good really doesn’t saying anything useful about model B.

there’s a good reason scientists find them useful as predictors.

Useful, yes. Proof, no.

Ender

Barbarian observes:
Since {models} have accurately predicted things like the warming of the atmosphere…

The greenhouse theory requires that atmospheric warming precede surface warming

No, that’s a misconception. But we don’t know what the data show for sure, since earlier atmospheric probes were faulty and gave false results.

However, due to differences in specific heat, the models show that the surface of the Earth should warm first, which is what we see happening.

(Barbarian points out that the models accurately predicted the observed warming trends, reductions in glaciers, and the increase in severe hurricanes in the North Atlantic )

Even as severe hurricanes increased in the North Atlantic they were decreasing in the eastern Pacific, but I’m sure there is a good explanation for why global climate change doesn’t seem to affect the climate globally.

The data for the Pacific is not as detailed, and hasn’t been kept as long. So there’s more uncertainty there. But where we have good data, it supports the model.

Also - just a guess here - I’m betting that the models created to predict hurricane activity in the North Atlantic were probably not the same ones used to “prove” that climate change at the poles was man made.

Hmmm… seems like they are.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Barbarian on the reliable predictions of the models:
there’s a good reason scientists find them useful as predictors.

Useful, yes. Proof, no.

As you might know, “proof” is not part of science. We only have varying degrees of confidence. Which is why scientists overwhelmingly accept warming; the data are quire good, and they support the models.

Good. Then you too reject the claim that climate change at the poles has been proven to be man made.

Ender

My house is heated to 68 when someone is home and 60 when we got to bed or leave for work. We only run the A/C when we can not stand the heat at night. My wife walks to work on days that allow it, not when it is snowing, raining or 10 below. I drive a small pick-up that is used for work. We recycle most of our garbage because they pickup the recycles for free and a 30 gal. container cost $2.50. I live frugally to save money but the environment also benefits from my life style. I am not about to change the way I live just because somebody thinks I may be causing global warming. I don’t believe the major cause of climate change is man made but even if it is I am not going to change. If someone like Al Gore can live his lifestyle, he should shut his fat face and leave me and mine alone. I just don’t care about the polar bears that much and if the east coast and California are under water it will mean my property values will go sky high.

I read an interesting article about the conservation of angular momentum in the Solar System, how it effects the size of the different orbits depending on the interaction off all the bodies, and how it is further affected by the conservation of angular momentum of the Milky Way. Since one of the biggest factors of radiative heating is distance, it pointed to another factor in climate changes.

The point of bringing this up is that there are so many factors involved, it would be hard to definitively prove that CO2 is the big problem. From what I understand, more CO2 is put into the atmosphere by volcanoes than by people. But that aside, between sun spots, solar convection and composition, orbital fluctuations, it would seem that there are many many more factors at stake than most people realize.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.