The first piece of evidence is in the way scientists analyse the isotopic composition of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. For us non-scientists, this means they examine not just how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, but also what kind of CO2.
Scientists look at atoms with the same chemical behaviour, but with different masses, to tell the source of a molecule of CO2: whether it came from burning fossil fuels, as opposed to, say, a volcano.
The second piece of evidence is historical: we can simply look at the records of human activities. We know that since the Industrial Revolution we've been using fossil fuels and burning forested land, both processes that convert organic carbon into CO2.
...and...
Given the knowledge that the 40 per cent increase in CO2 over pre-industrial levels is due to burning fossil fuels, and the knowledge that CO2 is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that holds warmth in the atmosphere, the basic science of climate change really isn't as complicated as the vested interests would like you to think.
We are in the hottest decade since temperature records began
My erstwhile travelling companion Nick Minchin argues the view in Fairfax Media today that while we can all agree on clean energy, debate on the science of climate change should continue.
He states that "neither Anna, nor those whom Anna took me to meet, could convince me that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are driving dangerous global warming".
With due respect to Nick, this refusal to change his mind wasn't for lack of trying – or for lack of evidence. There are two pieces of clear, empirical evidence showing that human emissions of carbon pollution are responsible for the 40 per cent increase in CO2 since pre-industrial levels.
Adversaries ... former senator and Liberal Party backroom operator Nick Minchin and Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition.
The first piece of evidence is in the way scientists analyse the isotopic composition of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. For us non-scientists, this means they examine not just how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, but also what kind of CO2.
Scientists look at atoms with the same chemical behaviour, but with different masses, to tell the source of a molecule of CO2: whether it came from burning fossil fuels, as opposed to, say, a volcano.
The second piece of evidence is historical: we can simply look at the records of human activities. We know that since the Industrial Revolution we've been using fossil fuels and burning forested land, both processes that convert organic carbon into CO2.
"We're sure that the increase is due to fossil fuel burning" John Barnes told Nick and me at Mauna Loa. "That is the only thing that works, that makes sense."
Given the knowledge that the 40 per cent increase in CO2 over pre-industrial levels is due to burning fossil fuels, and the knowledge that CO2 is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that holds warmth in the atmosphere, the basic science of climate change really isn't as complicated as the vested interests would like you to think.
We are in the hottest decade since temperature records began – and despite Nick's incorrect statement on the ABC's Q&A last night, 2010 and 2005 were both hotter than 1998. You can always cherry-pick one hot year and one cold year from a decade – but just like one doesn't use one hot day in winter and one cold day in summer to argue that Sydney's summers are colder than its winters, we must look at long-term trends when talking about climate change.
To sum it up: Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, humans have increased them 40 per cent since the industrial revolution – and the world has warmed.
So are the vast majority, which is quite interesting to me, considering the abuse I received here from the Natural Causes Deniers just because I have a questioning/cautious view on the matter. Perhaps it was my two simple questions that irritated them so much... 'what percentage of climate change is caused by humans?', and 'what caused climate change before humans were around?'... asking those questions to a Natural Causes Denialist always seems to drive them nuts. I guess Natural Causes Deniers are just much smarter than the rest of the population, which gives them the right to hurl abuse and attempt to belittle the (vast majority) of people with an opposing view to them...
'The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.'
I agree with you Shadow in regards to those two most important questions. The earth has cooled and warmed in cycles over thousands and millions of years. What is the cause of these heating/cooling cycles? How can you quantify the effect of increased CO2 emissions on temperature when you have underlying natural cooling/warming going on. "Since temperature records began" is a tiny fraction of time in the earth's history and could easily be corresponding to a natural warming part of the cycle.
Finally, we are in between ice ages at the moment, so what would you recommend as a response when the next ice age begins?
I don't discount that increased CO2 can be contributing to warming but one thing is for certain, climate change is going to keep occurring regardless of our contribution to it.
I agree with you Shadow in regards to those two most important questions. The earth has cooled and warmed in cycles over thousands and millions of years. What is the cause of these heating/cooling cycles? How can you quantify the effect of increased CO2 emissions on temperature when you have underlying natural cooling/warming going on. "Since temperature records began" is a tiny fraction of time in the earth's history and could easily be corresponding to a natural warming part of the cycle.
Finally, we are in between ice ages at the moment, so what would you recommend as a response when the next ice age begins?
I don't discount that increased CO2 can be contributing to warming but one thing is for certain, climate change is going to keep occurring regardless of our contribution to it.
Response to this taken from www.skepticalscience.com
"Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing."
"Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2."
There is no science in climate change debate. Neither side can scientifically prove or disapprove anything they or other side says.
It’s all back to statistics (a liberal art) and politics.
Instead of focusing on good things that must be done regardless of climate change issue - development of new safe and sustainable energy sources, they waste time and money debating the argument that cannot be won.
There is no science in climate change debate. Neither side can scientifically prove or disapprove anything they or other side says.
It’s all back to statistics (a liberal art) and politics.
Instead of focusing on good things that must be done regardless of climate change issue - development of new safe and sustainable energy sources, they waste time and money debating the argument that cannot be won.
The science that links human activity to climate change is as strong as the science that links smoking to lung cancer.
Climate researcher Ian McHugh said on Crikey, "Almost every national science academy and professional scientific association on the planet support similar conclusions. Surveys of either the scientific literature or professional opinion lead to the same conclusion: there is near-unanimity on the broad nature and causes of climate change in the scientific community.
So by any fair measure, there is a scientific consensus on climate change. And consensus matters. The views of the self-styled climate “sceptics” lie nowhere within the window of plausible scientific contestability, and nowhere near it. This presents a credibility problem for contrarians, because when we’re not equipped to critically scrutinise complex issues ourselves, we take consensus among experts as a useful guide. This is not just eminently reasonable — it is indispensable. It underpins the basic division of labour by which society operates."
And from the same article, according to the US National Academy of Sciences:
“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
So does this carbon tax still work if we continue to overpopulate? Not just here but in China and the like?
stinkbug omosessuale Frank Castle is a liar and a criminal. He will often deliberately take people out of context and use straw man arguments. Frank finally and unintentionally gives it up and admits he got where he is, primarily via dumb luck! See here Property will be 50-70% off by 2016.
So does this carbon tax still work if we continue to overpopulate? Not just here but in China and the like?
It works even better as we flood Australia with increasing numbers of skilled,Chinese immigrants and their families who are willing to do the work that you aren't or can't. It's a good move for a nation that plans on a massive population increase over the next decade or two.
There is no science in climate change debate. Neither side can scientifically prove or disapprove anything they or other side says.
It’s all back to statistics (a liberal art) and politics.
Instead of focusing on good things that must be done regardless of climate change issue - development of new safe and sustainable energy sources, they waste time and money debating the argument that cannot be won.
Strange Survey. I ended up in Cautious.
Funny thing is, whomever designed the software assumed that I know little about global warming and that I am not interested just because I am not convinced its caused by humans.
My thoughts are that its probably not caused by humans, and even if it was we should adapt rather than try to stop.
The earth has been warmer in the past and it has been colder.
So are the vast majority, which is quite interesting to me, considering the abuse I received here from the Natural Causes Deniers just because I have a questioning/cautious view on the matter. Perhaps it was my two simple questions that irritated them so much... 'what percentage of climate change is caused by humans?', and 'what caused climate change before humans were around?'... asking those questions to a Natural Causes Denialist always seems to drive them nuts. I guess Natural Causes Deniers are just much smarter than the rest of the population, which gives them the right to hurl abuse and attempt to belittle the (vast majority) of people with an opposing view to them...
'The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.'
I was one of the people who answered these questions. Very complex answers are necessary. You asking me the questions didn't drive me nuts and I don't remember abusing you.
These are very fair questions to ask, but just because something else caused climate change before humans were around does not mean that humans are not driving it now. There are many vectors (sun, human CO2, natural Co2 emission and adsorption, ocean currents, clouds, volcanoes, animal, etc) in the complex system of climate change, you are talking about just a few of them. They are all valid.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy