[split] Climate Change, Climate Shift

[vox nihili]

Can we have some actual science in here please.

1. Human have only been measuring temperature for the past 100 years or so (e.g. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Climate-updates&tracker=trend-maps). Compare this to the scale at which climate change happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data), which is over tens of thousands of years. Whilst there is a consensus that there is a climate change currently, that is only because we have limited data and we are performing a rather pessimistic extrapolation. The fact is the risk of a drastic climate change is too great, but we must keep in mind that this is only an extrapolation, not a scientific certainty.

2. We are not sure what is causing the "accelerated global warming", or that even if it is a systematic change (again, because it is an extrapolation based on not much data). The consensus thus far points at CO2 emissions from our energy usage being the culprit. However, recent evidence points at other causes, such as CFCs and methane (e.g. http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html). The fact is, though there is a scientific consensus on there being global warming, there is no consensus on the cause, mechanism or what is a good climate model. The science of climate change is perhaps one of the more murky sciences out there, and this is before we even consider the political motivations.

3. The notion of gravity and climate change are very different. Gravity is a force that is easily measurable to high accuracy, and which happens on a fast enough timescale that we can make many measurements to rid ourselves of statistical imprecisions, and which we have a large sample of on-earth and celestial bodies to obtain data from, and which we can perform a whole range of experiments to test our scientific theories. Climate change, due to the timescale it takes place over and the few systems that we can obtain data from (i.e. Earth, and numerous computer models of questionable realism), cannot be studied in detail like gravity, and existing theories do not rest on much weight of evidence. The similarity between climate change and gravity might be that they both have scientific consensus, but scientific consensus is not rigid nor necessarily correct (look at the state of physics for the past 100 years).

4. All of these aside, from an economical standpoint, we must acknowledge that if a drastic climate change was to occur, it would have HUGE impact on our society. This is a conclusion purely from considering the risks and consequences. It then comes down to asking ourselves that, if such a disaster was to occur, how we ought to prepare for it? We have already gone through similar processes with other disasters, such as the Near-Earth Objects programmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid-impact_avoidance). We have yet to devise a similar strategy for managing the risks of climate change, possibly because the scale of such a disaster is too large for us to manage with our current technology. Nevertheless, it is essential that we come up with methods and strategies to manage this risk. Whether or not someone accepts or denies the extrapolation of current climate change data, he/she would be silly to not recognise the importance of managing this risk.

TL;DR, the science of climate change is not very solid. Do not treat it on the same scale as the hard sciences such as the laws of gravity. Our motivation should be based on an assessment of risks, not the numerous predictions of dubious climate models that are construed as "scientific facts".

I don't think you've particularly well represented the science here. To say that we've been measuring temperature for approximately 100 years is true, however, we have been able to, with great accuracy, measure elements of climate retrospectively. Just because we weren't measuring it at the time doesn't mean that we don't have the data about it. What we have observed over the last 100 years is an uncharacteristically accelerated change in various aspects of climate, particularly temperature. There is scientific evidence to support that and there is scientific evidence that implicates human activity and the industrialisation of the world in that change.

[simpak]

More so than climate change, shift, 'whatever', I support renewable energy because our current resources are limited.
Like that time we almost ran out of water and they were like omg desalination plant!

[charmanderp]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/greens-mp-adam-bandt-tries-to-make-political-mileage-out-of-fires/story-fni0xqrb-1226741900565

What do you guys think about this? Insensitive from Bandt or necessary politicking? Or just factually inaccurate?

[chasej]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/greens-mp-adam-bandt-tries-to-make-political-mileage-out-of-fires/story-fni0xqrb-1226741900565

What do you guys think about this? Insensitive from Bandt or necessary politicking? Or just factually inaccurate?

I have a very dim view of people who attempt to use others misfortune to advance their own ideology.

I'm sure this was posted by a stupid PR team regardless. Nonetheless the herald sun tends to be so bias these days I barely read it.