Remember me
▼ Content

How much of climate change is man-made?


How much of climate change is man-made?13-11-2015 02:18
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
a) A lot of it! Science has proven climate change is significantly affected by human activity.
b) Some of it, but other, natural, factors contribute significantly.
c) Human activity contributes, but climate change is mostly not caused by people.
d) Very little climate change is man-made, this stuff would happen with or without people.
e) Man-made climate change is an unproven theory and basically a hoax.
13-11-2015 02:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Your possible answers don't really make sense, in that you can't "prove" a scientific theory. Proofs are for mathematics, not science.

Leaving that aside for the moment, the general scientific consensus is, I think, that man-made global warming is responsible for about 110% of the currently observed warming. That is, if it were not for human emissions of greenhouse gasses, the Earth would have naturally cooled by about 0.1 C rather than warming by about 1 C over the last 150 years or so.
13-11-2015 02:41
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Surface Detail wrote:
Your possible answers don't really make sense, in that you can't "prove" a scientific theory. Proofs are for mathematics, not science.


I never said it was a theory.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 02:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
gctimes wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Your possible answers don't really make sense, in that you can't "prove" a scientific theory. Proofs are for mathematics, not science.


I never said it was a theory.

Well, it is a theory, in the same sense that gravity, evolution and quantum mechanics are theories. That is, they are well-founded explanations for observed phenomena.
13-11-2015 02:46
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 02:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
gctimes wrote:
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.

You're thinking of theory in the colloquial sense. In the scientific sense, a theory is a well-founded explanation for some physical phenomenon (e.g. quantum theory, theory of gravity). Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as a proven scientific fact.
13-11-2015 02:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Your possible answers don't really make sense, in that you can't "prove" a scientific theory. Proofs are for mathematics, not science.

Leaving that aside for the moment, the general scientific consensus is, I think, that man-made global warming is responsible for about 110% of the currently observed warming. That is, if it were not for human emissions of greenhouse gasses, the Earth would have naturally cooled by about 0.1 C rather than warming by about 1 C over the last 150 years or so.


Hey...great demonstration of your mathematical skills, dude.

There is not only no such thing as a scientific proof, there is no such thing as a scientific consensus.
13-11-2015 03:00
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 03:03
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Surface Detail wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.

You're thinking of theory in the colloquial sense. In the scientific sense, a theory is a well-founded explanation for some physical phenomenon (e.g. quantum theory, theory of gravity). Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as a proven scientific fact.


Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Your possible answers don't really make sense, in that you can't "prove" a scientific theory. Proofs are for mathematics, not science.


I never said it was a theory.

Well, it is a theory, in the same sense that gravity, evolution and quantum mechanics are theories. That is, they are well-founded explanations for observed phenomena.


Gravity is not a theory. Gravitation is a theory. One is an observed force. The other is a description of the strength of that force against distance and mass. It is a mathematical formula that was changed by the application of the theory of relativity.

Quantum mechanics is not a theory. It is a branch of science, containing many theories.
13-11-2015 03:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
gctimes wrote:
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement


There is no such thing as a scientific fact, either. There is a fact, or there is not. The fact that a piece of data was collected with an instrument does not make it 'scientific' in any way. Thermometers are no more scientific than a concrete sidewalk.
13-11-2015 03:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Your possible answers don't really make sense, in that you can't "prove" a scientific theory. Proofs are for mathematics, not science.


I never said it was a theory.

Well, it is a theory, in the same sense that gravity, evolution and quantum mechanics are theories. That is, they are well-founded explanations for observed phenomena.


Gravity is not a theory. Gravitation is a theory. One is an observed force. The other is a description of the strength of that force against distance and mass. It is a mathematical formula that was changed by the application of the theory of relativity.

Quantum mechanics is not a theory. It is a branch of science, containing many theories.

Newton's theory of gravity (or, if you prefer, gravitation - that really is nit-picking) is indeed a theory. And I'm fairly sure that, unlike his laws of motion, Newton's Law of Gravity remained unchanged with the advent of Einstein's mechanics. Is F = Gm1m2/r^2 not still correct in an Einsteinian universe?

Quantum mechanics is indeed a theory, albeit a highly evidenced and many-faceted theory.
13-11-2015 04:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
gctimes wrote:
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement

Facts are facts. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact" unless you are Climate Scientist who desperately needs to put the word "science" or "scientific" in front of anything pertaining to his religion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 04:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote:
And I'm fairly sure that, unlike his laws of motion, Newton's Law of Gravity remained unchanged with the advent of Einstein's mechanics. Is F = Gm1m2/r^2 not still correct in an Einsteinian universe?

Under Newton, "gravity" was a force of nature. Einstein changed the paradigm from a force of nature to one of masses emitting graviton particles that travel at the speed of light, and if things were light-years apart then their gravity should take years to take effect..

Einstein had a problem with the infinite speed of the force of gravity. According to Newton's theory, two masses that were light-years apart nonetheless began attracting each other instantaneously. Einstein had this idea that the speed of light was kind of like a limitation on how things could operate.

Surface Detail wrote:Quantum mechanics is indeed a theory, albeit a highly evidenced and many-faceted theory.

Quantum mechanics is a portfolio of falsifiable models, almost like a category of models that all ride on a set of common axioms...like Euclidean geometry.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 04:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Your possible answers don't really make sense, in that you can't "prove" a scientific theory. Proofs are for mathematics, not science.


I never said it was a theory.

Well, it is a theory, in the same sense that gravity, evolution and quantum mechanics are theories. That is, they are well-founded explanations for observed phenomena.


Gravity is not a theory. Gravitation is a theory. One is an observed force. The other is a description of the strength of that force against distance and mass. It is a mathematical formula that was changed by the application of the theory of relativity.

Quantum mechanics is not a theory. It is a branch of science, containing many theories.

Newton's theory of gravity (or, if you prefer, gravitation - that really is nit-picking) is indeed a theory.

Newton never had a theory called the theory of gravity. He called it the Theory of Gravitation. I was never used to define why gravity occurs, it is used to describe how the force changes with distance and mass.
Surface Detail wrote:
And I'm fairly sure that, unlike his laws of motion, Newton's Law of Gravity remained unchanged with the advent of Einstein's mechanics. Is F = Gm1m2/r^2 not still correct in an Einsteinian universe?

No. It must be corrected for the change in mass as you approach the speed of light.
Surface Detail wrote:

Quantum mechanics is indeed a theory, albeit a highly evidenced and many-faceted theory.

No, it isn't. It is a branch of science made of many theories.
13-11-2015 04:45
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Into the Night wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement


There is no such thing as a scientific fact, either. There is a fact, or there is not. The fact that a piece of data was collected with an instrument does not make it 'scientific' in any way. Thermometers are no more scientific than a concrete sidewalk.


That is just scientifically inaccurate, and factually untrue.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 04:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
gctimes wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement


There is no such thing as a scientific fact, either. There is a fact, or there is not. The fact that a piece of data was collected with an instrument does not make it 'scientific' in any way. Thermometers are no more scientific than a concrete sidewalk.


That is just scientifically inaccurate, and factually untrue.


^ This sentence doesn't even make sense. Speak English please.
13-11-2015 04:52
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Into the Night wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gctimes wrote:
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement


There is no such thing as a scientific fact, either. There is a fact, or there is not. The fact that a piece of data was collected with an instrument does not make it 'scientific' in any way. Thermometers are no more scientific than a concrete sidewalk.


That is just scientifically inaccurate, and factually untrue.


^ This sentence doesn't even make sense. Speak English please.


I have a Masters in Physics...there certainly ARE scientific facts, which have been 100% proven, and of which climate change is one. And that sentence was perfect english...thank you.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 04:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
gctimes wrote:
I have a Masters in Physics...there certainly ARE scientific facts, which have been 100% proven, and of which climate change is one. And that sentence was perfect english...thank you.


Would you please write in your own words in this thread (no links please) the physics of the "greenhouse effect"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 05:02
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
no, I shant. agree to disagree


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 05:04
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
That is just scientifically inaccurate, and factually untrue.

Please explain in more than one sentence.
13-11-2015 05:07
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
explain what???
13-11-2015 06:08
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Explain why you think Into the Night's statement was scientifically inacurate?
Can you please list some "scientific facts"?
13-11-2015 10:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
And I'm fairly sure that, unlike his laws of motion, Newton's Law of Gravity remained unchanged with the advent of Einstein's mechanics. Is F = Gm1m2/r^2 not still correct in an Einsteinian universe?

Under Newton, "gravity" was a force of nature. Einstein changed the paradigm from a force of nature to one of masses emitting graviton particles that travel at the speed of light, and if things were light-years apart then their gravity should take years to take effect..

Einstein had a problem with the infinite speed of the force of gravity. According to Newton's theory, two masses that were light-years apart nonetheless began attracting each other instantaneously. Einstein had this idea that the speed of light was kind of like a limitation on how things could operate.

Surface Detail wrote:Quantum mechanics is indeed a theory, albeit a highly evidenced and many-faceted theory.

Quantum mechanics is a portfolio of falsifiable models, almost like a category of models that all ride on a set of common axioms...like Euclidean geometry.

Sorry, but that's simply wrong. Gravitons are a feature of the quantum field description of gravity, which was proposed far later and not by Einstein. Einstein's description of gravity in terms of his theory of general relativity is based on classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics.

Einstein wasn't the only one who had a problem with Newton's instant propagation of gravity. Others, notably Laplace and Poincaré, had also wrestled with the problem before him. However, the propagation of gravity at the speed of light follows directly from his theory of general relativity, which does indeed assume that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant within all frames of reference.

Quantum mechanics (aka quantum theory) is not a "portfolio of falsifiable models"; it is a branch of physics based on the fundamental assumption that energy is exchanged in discrete packets, or quanta.
13-11-2015 11:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
gctimes wrote:
a) A lot of it! Science has proven climate change is significantly affected by human activity.
b) Some of it, but other, natural, factors contribute significantly.
c) Human activity contributes, but climate change is mostly not caused by people.
d) Very little climate change is man-made, this stuff would happen with or without people.
e) Man-made climate change is an unproven theory and basically a hoax.


Reasonable question but the better view, I think, is this;

If we do get the temperature rise as predicted how bad is that likely to be?

Firstly I think that we can surely now discount the top end of the predictions after the last 19 years of no significant temperature change. So that leaves a small, less that 2c increase by 2100, change. As a maximum.

What will that do?

1, Increased area of land for cultivation, especially in the north of the Canadian Praries and the Stepps.

2, Increased agricultural fertility due to CO2 in the tropics.

3, Increased rainfall especially in the dry and semi-desert areas. This is what has happened in previous warm periods at least.

4, A sea level rise, perhaps, of maybe 0.5m. Knee high.

If you think that that is bad, well, I don't. I think it's over all good.
13-11-2015 11:25
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@gctimes - please reply and let me know if you got the message I just sent you (check your message inbox).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-11-2015 18:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
trafn wrote:
M2C2 - the global 9/11.

Denialist Trolls are the ultimate abortionists - they abort our future.


Why the need to fear-monger? What are you trying scare people into doing?

Didn't you write a book explaining how it's already too late? How much time do you claim that planet earth has left? 60 years roughly, 80 years tops? Are you claiming that people with differing viewpoints are going to somehow cut into the time we have left?

It must really suck to be you, living in a constant state of panic without any hope for the future, desperately needing to control the expression on the internet and living to eradicate dissenting opinions. Wow. One would think that you would have better things to do with the remaining years of planet earth than to spam this particular website.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 19:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote: Gravitons are a feature of the quantum field description of gravity, which was proposed far later and not by Einstein.

Yes, "gravitons" specifically came later, but Einstein facilitated the paradigm shift away from Newton's "invisible force" of infinite speed by describing gravity as emanating waves which adhered to the "speed of light" limitations. Gravity waves later became represented as gravity particles.

Surface Detail wrote: Einstein wasn't the only one who had a problem with Newton's instant propagation of gravity.

Correct, he was not.

Surface Detail wrote: Quantum mechanics (aka quantum theory) is not a "portfolio of falsifiable models"; it is a branch of physics based on the fundamental assumption that energy is exchanged in discrete packets, or quanta.

Unless you are quibbling over the use of the word "portfolio" I think you agree that quantum mechanics is a branch of physics which has a collection of models (and there are quite a few) that all ride on common axioms, e.g. discrete quanta, Planck's constant, et. al. Please pardon my occasional use of "portfolio," e.g. "QM portfolio." I just like that word.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 19:27
Daniel
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Tim the plumber wrote:
gctimes wrote:
a) A lot of it! Science has proven climate change is significantly affected by human activity.
b) Some of it, but other, natural, factors contribute significantly.
c) Human activity contributes, but climate change is mostly not caused by people.
d) Very little climate change is man-made, this stuff would happen with or without people.
e) Man-made climate change is an unproven theory and basically a hoax.


Reasonable question but the better view, I think, is this;

If we do get the temperature rise as predicted how bad is that likely to be?

Firstly I think that we can surely now discount the top end of the predictions after the last 19 years of no significant temperature change. So that leaves a small, less that 2c increase by 2100, change. As a maximum.

What will that do?

1, Increased area of land for cultivation, especially in the north of the Canadian Praries and the Stepps.

2, Increased agricultural fertility due to CO2 in the tropics.

3, Increased rainfall especially in the dry and semi-desert areas. This is what has happened in previous warm periods at least.

4, A sea level rise, perhaps, of maybe 0.5m. Knee high.

If you think that that is bad, well, I don't. I think it's over all good.

I agree. Too much of this is ignored in favor of the various catastrophic scenarios. The bigger question is will the good outweigh the bad. From what I have seen, I would say yes.
13-11-2015 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
And I'm fairly sure that, unlike his laws of motion, Newton's Law of Gravity remained unchanged with the advent of Einstein's mechanics. Is F = Gm1m2/r^2 not still correct in an Einsteinian universe?

Under Newton, "gravity" was a force of nature. Einstein changed the paradigm from a force of nature to one of masses emitting graviton particles that travel at the speed of light, and if things were light-years apart then their gravity should take years to take effect..

Einstein had a problem with the infinite speed of the force of gravity. According to Newton's theory, two masses that were light-years apart nonetheless began attracting each other instantaneously. Einstein had this idea that the speed of light was kind of like a limitation on how things could operate.

Surface Detail wrote:Quantum mechanics is indeed a theory, albeit a highly evidenced and many-faceted theory.

Quantum mechanics is a portfolio of falsifiable models, almost like a category of models that all ride on a set of common axioms...like Euclidean geometry.

Sorry, but that's simply wrong. Gravitons are a feature of the quantum field description of gravity, which was proposed far later and not by Einstein. Einstein's description of gravity in terms of his theory of general relativity is based on classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics.

Einstein did not create the concept of a graviton, but the concept was created in 1930. That is not long after Einstein. You are quite right. The Theory of Relativity was based on classical mechanics, Maxwell's equations, Lorentz's work, and the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Surface Detail wrote:
Einstein wasn't the only one who had a problem with Newton's instant propagation of gravity. Others, notably Laplace and Poincaré, had also wrestled with the problem before him. However, the propagation of gravity at the speed of light follows directly from his theory of general relativity, which does indeed assume that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant within all frames of reference.

Irrelevant. We are discussing why Newton's law of gravitation had to be modified by Einstein's work.
Surface Detail wrote:
Quantum mechanics (aka quantum theory) is not a "portfolio of falsifiable models"; it is a branch of physics based on the fundamental assumption that energy is exchanged in discrete packets, or quanta.

By that definition, there must be a Theory of Classical Mechanics, a Theory of Astronomy, and a Theory of Biology. I began to see how you can come up with a belief in a Theory of Climate Change.
Edited on 13-11-2015 21:47




Join the debate How much of climate change is man-made?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
21 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Man-Made Climate Change720-09-2019 21:46
Man-Made CO2?2630-08-2019 22:36
Florida Man...121-08-2019 20:51
There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made8006-08-2019 19:38
No man can fool god.028-04-2019 18:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact