The History Of Climate Change Science

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560
A brief history of climate change

• 20 September 2013

BBC News environment correspondent Richard Black traces key milestones, scientific discoveries, technical innovations and political action.
----------------

This is an excellent little history of climate change science from discovery of CO2 greenhouse effect to the realization that man made climate change is a serious problem. Some idiots claim it is all a hoax, either by the Chinese or nefarious Europeans who also invented Marxism. (Mark Levin) How did we get to this point, scientifically speaking? This tells us a lot about the roots of climate science.

 

[TSwizzle]

Climate change is no hoax, the earth's climate has never been stable. Man's influence over the climate is negligible. Oh, and the science is not settled, no matter what Al Gore says.

 

[Elixir]

Man's influence over the climate is negligible.

I assume you will be traveling to Stockholm to present your findings and supporting data, and to accept your Nobel prize. It's amazing that no other scientist (not on the GOP/fossil fuel industry payroll) was able to offer such a compelling case already.

Oh, and the science is not settled, no matter what Al Gore says.

The fact that science-ignorant loudmouths exist in great numbers doesn't mean that the actual science isn't settled.

 

[bilby]

Man's influence over the climate is negligible.

I assume you will be traveling to Stockholm to present your findings and supporting data, and to accept your Nobel prize. It's amazing that no other scientist (not on the GOP/fossil fuel industry payroll) was able to offer such a compelling case already.

Oh, and the science is not settled, no matter what Al Gore says.

The fact that science-ignorant loudmouths exist in great numbers doesn't mean that the actual science isn't settled.

Oddly, the only people I ever come across these days who give a flying fuck about what Al Gore says are those who use his name to try to make out that climate science is some kind of political game.

If a person mentions his name in the context of climate change, you can be almost certain that that person is arguing that man made climate change doesn't exist. Those who understand that it does exist, also understand that Al Gore's opinion on the matter is no indication either way of its accuracy or factuality.

The science isn't even particularly complex: It's easy enough to calculate the approximate tonnage of CO₂ added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is per annum; It's easy to calculate the rate at which atmospheric CO₂ concentrations should change as a result; It's easy to calculate the mean change in temperature that should be expected as a result of this change in atmospheric composition. The theoretical stuff is not challenging at all. And the experimental results - the actual data collected on both CO₂ concentrations and global average temperatures - match the theoretical predictions very closely.

In short, if any of the science were NOT settled, it would be very easy to demonstrate that fact. It wouldn't be necessary to make snide remarks about former politicians and presidential candidates; Instead, people could just present details of the errors in the theories; Or details of the disjoint between theoretical predictions and experimental results. But they eschew this in favour of deriding Al Gore, and implying that anyone who agrees with the evidence does so due to having been hoodwinked by Mr Gore, and not due to having actually understood the science.

Climate change science deniers only ever mention the science to say that it is 'not settled', but never give examples of this alleged continuing debate amongst qualified scientists. I wonder why?

If almost all of the people who have actually studied something are in agreement, then it would be insane to decide that they are wrong, solely on the basis that Al Gore is convinced that they are not.

 

[Underseer]

Climate change is no hoax, the earth's climate has never been stable. Man's influence over the climate is negligible. Oh, and the science is not settled, no matter what Al Gore says.

Yeah, the scientists are all part of a vast international conspiracy! It's the only possible explanation for why the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with you. Don't those so-called experts know who you are?

It's a conspiracy!!!!!

[/conservolibertarian]

 

[southernhybrid]

Although I was never a climate change denier, I attended a lecture about ten years ago, that was given by an actual scientist. He had charts that showed how the climate started warming just about the same time that humans began using fossil fuels in greater amounts. It's hard for me to understand how anyone can deny the evidence that surrounds us. On the other hand, we humans have a long history of destroying our habitat. It's just far more catastrophic this go around.

 

[Learner]

I have heard disputes that the term (mistakenly used perhaps) "global warming" was not quite correct and is not quite the same as the term "climate change" as evident in whats happening around the world. Basically global-warming deniers wouldn't neccessarily be climate-change deniers. Confusing I know but some parts of the world is apparently getting colder.

 

[TSwizzle]

Although I was never a climate change denier, I attended a lecture about ten years ago, that was given by an actual scientist. He had charts that showed how the climate started warming just about the same time that humans began using fossil fuels in greater amounts. It's hard for me to understand how anyone can deny the evidence that surrounds us. On the other hand, we humans have a long history of destroying our habitat. It's just far more catastrophic this go around.

The "evidence" is severely lacking and the impact grossly exaggerated. The science is not settled.

 

[Underseer]

Although I was never a climate change denier, I attended a lecture about ten years ago, that was given by an actual scientist. He had charts that showed how the climate started warming just about the same time that humans began using fossil fuels in greater amounts. It's hard for me to understand how anyone can deny the evidence that surrounds us. On the other hand, we humans have a long history of destroying our habitat. It's just far more catastrophic this go around.

You can't trust what he said, he's obviously part of the conspiracy!

Did he or did he not disagree with TSwizzle? That proves it. That proves that he's wrong and that he's part of the conspiracy. Only information that confirms what TSwizzle believes is true!

You would know that if you understood anything about how science works. Do your own research.

[/conservolibertarian]

- - - Updated - - -

Although I was never a climate change denier, I attended a lecture about ten years ago, that was given by an actual scientist. He had charts that showed how the climate started warming just about the same time that humans began using fossil fuels in greater amounts. It's hard for me to understand how anyone can deny the evidence that surrounds us. On the other hand, we humans have a long history of destroying our habitat. It's just far more catastrophic this go around.

The "evidence" is severely lacking and the impact grossly exaggerated. The science is not settled.

Yes! The majority of Climatologists and the majority of all scientists are clearly part of the conspiracy! Why else would they disagree with you? Don't those so-called experts know who you are?

 

[Underseer]

Anyway, for those of you who have been duped by the conspiracy because you don't know who the real experts are, this will explain something about the sources people like TSwizzle use for "woke science" that warns him about The Conspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Did you know that Lord Monckton is a real, published scientist? Oh yes, he is. That's why you can trust him instead of all those fake scientists. Also, real information comes from blogs about published research, not from research.

PS [ent]mdash[/ent] those who are more expert in science than the scientists just love using selection bias. It turns out that if you carefully choose which bit of data you use, you can make it look like the data is saying anything you like.

 

[bilby]

I have heard disputes that the term (mistakenly used perhaps) "global warming" was not quite correct and is not quite the same as the term "climate change" as evident in whats happening around the world. Basically global-warming deniers wouldn't neccessarily be climate-change deniers. Confusing I know but some parts of the world is apparently getting colder.

Global warming is an accurate description of the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet as a whole. The clue is in the word 'global'. As this effect is not evenly distributed, the result is climate change, wherein climatic conditions at any given location will change from their historical norms to something abnormal. There is nothing contradictory or even particularly surprising in the fact that some areas will see cooling, while the overall global trend is one of warming.

The atmosphere and oceans circulate in (historically fairly consistent) patterns that cause some places to be far warmer than would be expected from mere latitude alone; The temperate areas of Western Europe, for example, are mostly further north than the Canada/US border, but are far warmer during winter than New England.

If the melting of the arctic ice stopped or disrupted the Gulf Stream, then we would expect temperatures in Western Europe to plummet; A dramatic (cooler) change in the local climate, as a direct consequence of a global warming trend.

The recent 'polar vortex' cold conditions in the Eastern US are a (less dramatic) example of this; the wintertime climate of the US East of the Rocky Mountains has become colder, while the climate west and north (eg in Alaska) has become considerably warmer. The overall global change is one of increasing temperatures; but the distribution of temperatures has changed, and so the local climate in some places is colder, while other places are much warmer.

This is only confusing because people with a financial interest deliberately want it to be.

 

[James Brown]

Ten years ago a man had in his clothes closet five sweaters and five tee shirts.

Today he has two sweaters and eight tee shirts.

Every time he dons a sweater, he mutters, "So much for global warming."

 

[TSwizzle]

Ten years ago a man had in his clothes closet five sweaters and five tee shirts.

Today he has two sweaters and eight tee shirts.

Every time he dons a sweater, he mutters, "So much for global warming."

Yeah, hear that a lot in the U.K. And Europe lately.

 

[Jokodo]

Ten years ago a man had in his clothes closet five sweaters and five tee shirts.

Today he has two sweaters and eight tee shirts.

Every time he dons a sweater, he mutters, "So much for global warming."

Yeah, hear that a lot in the U.K. And Europe lately.

Last week, when Europe was in the middle of its cold spell, the temperature at the North Pole and Greenland's North tip reached thawing. The average temperature in the high Arctic (the region 80° and more north) was 20-25° above the seasonal norm.

The two extremes are indeed directly related to each other: Warm water from the Gulf Stream breaking further than usual into the Polar Sea because of the lack of sea ice is what heated up the air, and the warm air over the Polar Sea pushed the cold air South.