|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:It sounds like preemptive apology for something that Obama is probably going to do regardless. Congress in the tea party era doesn't seem too amenable to the "you scratch our backs, we'll scratch yours" method of legislating, so I don't see Republicans doing anything but fighting tooth and nail, howling all the while, over any piece of pro-environmental legislation Obama puts forward no matter what he decides about Keystone. Michael Levi isn't part of the Obama administration though. It's his own independent analysis (as part of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank). Anyway, I'm shooting him an email to get more clarification. Holding back the purse strings probably is part of it though.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 20:52 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 07:07 |
|
quote:Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html good article on temperature fluctuations throughout the history of the earth. The earth has been hotter than it is now for much of past billion years. 15,000 years ago, the entire state of New York was under 2 miles of snow. Do you really want that? Putting catalytic converters on cars did make a huge difference though, in smog and air pollution, that was part of the clean air act in the 1970's. If they hadn't done that, it would really be bad by now. CO2 does make the oceans more acidic, most of it gets absorbed by the oceans. The impact is really more on the oceans than on the climate. co2 is what makes soft drinks acidic, same thing. I read that oxygen levels in the city are actually significantly lower due to the huge amount of oxygen cars suck up. Back in the 1800's, they touted breathing high levels of oxygen as a cure for all sorts of diseases. They give oxygen to all sorts of terminally ill people, but its probably good for you before you get sick, too. quote:There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. this is another quote from the link, makes a very good point. FullofAwe fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Apr 25, 2013 |
# ? Apr 25, 2013 22:01 |
|
whatis posted:I've seen this article posted in my facebook feed twice in the last couple weeks, and its apparently been picked up by a bunch of other blogs in that same time frame: http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html So my boyfriend just went to a party back in his hometown in LA and saw a bunch of his buddies from back in the day. While he moved up to Seattle, these guys all moved into the hills, bought Harleys and the American dream. Well, my guy must have said something that belied his commie-hippy ways and one of his friends posted this article on his Facebook, with a caption like, "after talking with you, thought you'd be interested in this article." What I wanna know is, who's Principia Scientific anyway? It's amazing that people will purposefully misinterpret findings in the most obtuse way to support their views.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2013 19:31 |
|
Add another finding to the massive pile of evidence supporting climate change. http://www.sportfishingmag.com/news/atlantic-ocean-northeast-warmest-150-years
|
# ? Apr 28, 2013 06:58 |
|
Longanimitas posted:Add another finding to the massive pile of evidence supporting climate change. First they came for the sports fishermen, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a sports fisherman...
|
# ? Apr 28, 2013 07:36 |
|
jidohanbaiki posted:So my boyfriend just went to a party back in his hometown in LA and saw a bunch of his buddies from back in the day. While he moved up to Seattle, these guys all moved into the hills, bought Harleys and the American dream. Well, my guy must have said something that belied his commie-hippy ways and one of his friends posted this article on his Facebook, with a caption like, "after talking with you, thought you'd be interested in this article." "New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere" Science! Debunked! Fouriers 1800s greenhouse experiment was wrong, it turns out CO2 doesn't absorb infra-red, instead it functions to make physicists lie! Everything is backwards now. Why just a moment ago, my cat entered the room BACKWARDS then barked! edit: Lol, this is the paper they are refering to: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ Apparently the "Disproof" is some offhanded explaination of CO2 as 'reflecting heat back into space'. Which it actually does. And this doesn't conflict at all with the CO2 global warming science. In fact its core to it. loving dunning krugeresque idiots. edit2: It gets better. Principia Scientific claims to be an association of 20 or so "climate scientists. Its chief "climate scientist" is Dr Tim Ball. Dr Tim Balls qualification is in *drum roll* Geography. Specifically "historical geography". Another god drat confused geologist. I'm not not even sure "Geologist" is correct. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se...false&source=ae is his only academically published paper. "Climate and History: A Connection That Cannot Be Ignored." in History and Social Science Teacher, v19 n4 p205-14 May 1984 Its a loving history essay. Thats it. Thats "Renowned climatologist" Tim Balls entire publication history in legitimate journals. edit2: Oh here we go. An actual climate change paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00139750 . It would appear since his dabbling with science in the 80s, he's changed his tone. He's still not a climatologist of anything remotely close to note. Not if he thinks CO2 makes poo poo colder. duck monster fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Apr 28, 2013 |
# ? Apr 28, 2013 09:48 |
|
duck monster posted:It would appear since his dabbling with science in the 80s, he's changed his tone. He's still not a climatologist of anything remotely close to note. Not if he thinks CO2 makes poo poo colder. Ah, but haven't you ever seen how cold it gets when you empty a CO2 fire extinguisher? Checkmate.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2013 12:05 |
|
Caconym posted:Ah, but haven't you ever seen how cold it gets when you empty a CO2 fire extinguisher? ITS ALIVE! / Science is fun!
|
# ? Apr 28, 2013 13:32 |
|
satan!!! posted:That doesn't hold true in practice though - the USSR and the PRC both have pretty poor records on environmentalism, and particularly CO2 emissions since there was such a large focus on industrialization. That's fairly inevitable as part of improving the quality of life of the people in those countries though. Cuba, on the other hand, is the only country the World Wildlife Fund considers to have "sustainable development" -- part of that is having less fuel and fertilizer, though, but they've done admirably well with urban gardening and so on.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2013 19:47 |
|
davidb posted:because governments/free market are reactive we wont start doing anything until were rebuilding several cities on each coast. When drought and flooding is rampant. When winters/summer sees large fluctuations in weather. Well have to abandon all our infrastructure along the coast and rebuild further inland. But the shores will be poluted with all the toxic/oils that will be released into the ocean from the submerged/abandoned cities. This has also been on my mind. It's very hard to countenance however, since I live in China. This may be going a little off topic but I don't see China waging international war even under catastrophic circumstances. Throughout their entire history I don't think China has ever waged a serious international war (unless you count support provided in Korea and Vietnam ), and they remain very internally focused. poo poo can and does change though so who knows?
|
# ? Apr 29, 2013 04:04 |
|
duck monster posted:"New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere" The only thing that comes to mind when I hear people talk about "CO2 making things cooler" is how CO2 plays a role with our planet's negative feedback loop. If the planet gets too hot, global CO2 levels fall, and the planet cools. Too cold, and CO2 levels rise. Only problem with this is, if we pump too much CO2 into our atmosphere (instead of leaving it in our planet's crust), we run the risk of destabilizing the negative feedback loop, and turning it into a positive feedback loop. The end result of that (in a worst-case scenario) is a 2nd Venus. The best-case scenario is massive global desertification. The levels of CO2 have to remain consistent over a number of millenia if the negative feedback loop is to do its job. So, no. While CO2 "technically" helps cool a planet, it has to remain stable. If we put too much into the air, our planet will suffer the consequences.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2013 04:47 |
|
FullofAwe posted:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html You have got to be kidding me. I truly hope you are trolling and.not serious. Still if you're trolling this thread you've got to be a terrible person, sorry. quote:Putting catalytic converters on cars did make a huge difference though, in smog and air pollution, that was part of the clean air act in the 1970's. If they hadn't done that, it would really be bad by now. CO2 does make the oceans more acidic, most of it gets absorbed by the oceans. The impact is really more on the oceans than on the climate. co2 is what makes soft drinks acidic, same thing. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming I'm not even sure if I should respond to this but here goes...Of course it is true that the temperature has changed greatly over long, long periods of geologic-scale time. HOWEVER, I doubt that the Earth has ever seen such drastic temperature change on a 100 year timeline..don't kid yourself.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2013 11:18 |
|
I, for one, would be pumped for an ice age.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2013 11:20 |
|
I would be pumped for anything that gets North America its large mammals back. We had some sweet animals back in the day
|
# ? May 6, 2013 05:04 |
|
North America still has its large mammals, only now they ride motorised scooters.
|
# ? May 6, 2013 05:27 |
|
Someone forwarded this to me: Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide (WSJ article) quote:Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy. Schmitt was an Apollo astronaut, so he must be credible, right???
|
# ? May 10, 2013 19:45 |
|
Aaaaand we just passed 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. A level not seen for millions of years. Good going humanity! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?hp&_r=0
|
# ? May 10, 2013 20:16 |
|
One step closer to my Canadian tropical resort hotel.
|
# ? May 10, 2013 20:59 |
|
Zalmun posted:Someone forwarded this to me: They certainly seem to have more credibility than you, forums poster Zalmun. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? May 10, 2013 23:14 |
|
Julio Lopez posted:They certainly seem to have more credibility than you, forums poster Zalmun. Yet, less credibility than the vast majority of climate scientists.
|
# ? May 10, 2013 23:49 |
|
Maybe we should send him back into space with a whole ship full of CO2. Its solid form even.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 00:12 |
|
theblackw0lf posted:Aaaaand we just passed 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. A level not seen for millions of years. Good going humanity! Yaaaayyyy... Seriously, if we can't completely change how our energy is generated in the next 10 - 15 years, we're even more screwed over than we already are. There's a little hope in how far solar is getting, but even then, if we can't implement it in time, we're all toast.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 00:12 |
|
SpaceGirlArt posted:Yet, less credibility than the vast majority of climate scientists. I actually read the article thinking 'oh I've read about this guy, about how he worked hard to get some serious science in the Apollo program' and willing to see what his opinion on the matter was. What I found was someone who wrote an opinion piece with spurious reasoning (more CO2 is good, not bad!), concluding with this: quote:We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. Making that kind of leap without considering the consequences of the effects on the current biosphere (not the one from over 65 million years ago), and saying 'hey stuff lived fine with more CO2!' is putting your head in the sand. Oh and to the guy that said 'he's got more credibility than you Forum Poster Zalmun', I'm not writing opinion pieces in the WSJ trying to push my viewpoint. Instead I'm writing on a comedy Internet forum to inform people about this news item, and adding some sarcasm that you obviously missed.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 02:15 |
|
The danger of CO2 has never been "this has never happened before." The danger has never been that global average temperature is changing. The danger is the rate at which climate is changing.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 02:32 |
|
Julio Lopez posted:They certainly seem to have more credibility than you, forums poster Zalmun. I don't see why, they're not climate scientists either. Feel free to refute this.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 02:44 |
|
Bizarro Watt posted:I don't see why, they're not climate scientists either. Feel free to refute this. Nor did the article cite anything, and certainly not the thousands of peer reviewed articles in research journals that talk about the negative effects of climate change. Nor did it do anything to refute any of them. Climate scientists have known for a long time that plants can benefit from increased CO2. It's never been the direct effects of CO2 that anyone has been worried about. It's also full of dumb poo poo like "well the dust bowl was worse than this recent drought, and there was less CO2 back then!" and absurd statements (with, again, no supporting evidence) like "There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather." which (1) is a strawman: climate change will affect future temperatures, and (2) probably false.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 03:04 |
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:The danger of CO2 has never been "this has never happened before." The danger has never been that global average temperature is changing. The danger is the rate at which climate is changing. To be precise, I think you mean "the rate at which climate will hypothetically change." Wording is key with sentences like that, lest you give the false impression that either temperature increases or sea level rise is currently accelerating. Along those same lines, a recent study in Nature determined that glacial ice melt on Greenland is not expected to accelerate. Dengue_Fever posted:HOWEVER, I doubt that the Earth has ever seen such drastic temperature change on a 100 year timeline..don't kid yourself. This is obviously false....I mean, you could argue that the Earth hasn't seen anything like that in the very recent holocene, but even that is questionable since it is impossible to be that precise with proxies. Arkane fucked around with this message at 05:05 on May 11, 2013 |
# ? May 11, 2013 05:02 |
|
I feel like I made a rule about Arkane posting in these threads, but now I can't remember.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 06:58 |
|
Probably, but the amount of bad information posted in this thread is like a mating call.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 07:17 |
|
Arkane posted:To be precise, I think you mean "the rate at which climate will hypothetically change." Wording is key with sentences like that, lest you give the false impression that either temperature increases or sea level rise is currently accelerating. quote:Along those same lines, a recent study in Nature determined that glacial ice melt on Greenland is not expected to accelerate.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 07:40 |
|
Bizarro Watt posted:No he means the rate that the climate is changing, because it is. The rate at which the climate has changed over the past 30 years will not be a harbinger of doom. Acceleration is a necessary ingredient to reach danger areas. Even the CO2 PPM is slightly misleading, since it's all about the feedbacks. CO2 will raise temperature all else being equal, yes, but each incremental increase has an ever diminishing effect. And if we're wrong about the feedbacks (i.e. the feedbacks are negative), a doubling of CO2 might do very little in terms of temperature/sea levels and the like. The past 12 years of temperature movements should give serious pause to those that think that the feedbacks will be highly positive. The evidence just not anywhere close to being there to verify the models.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 07:51 |
|
Arkane posted:CO2 will raise temperature all else being equal, yes, but each incremental increase has an ever diminishing effect. rivetz fucked around with this message at 16:30 on May 11, 2013 |
# ? May 11, 2013 15:02 |
|
rivetz posted:Could you clarify this statement, please. What I was saying is that each additional molecule of CO2 has a slightly diminished effect on warming. Here's the exact formula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Forcing_due_to_atmospheric_gas Amplification of the effect of the greenhouse gases is assumed in all of the climate models. For instance, all of the models in AR4 assume changes in cloud cover will amplify warming (a point of contention). On the topic of clarifications, not sure if you saw that the Marcott authors put the kibosh on their paper's conclusions (specifically the last sentence): quote:Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years? A little late to say that after all the news articles had already been written.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 16:34 |
|
Xandu posted:I feel like I made a rule about Arkane posting in these threads, but now I can't remember. You didn't but climate change denial, union-bashing and Huntsman fanboyism are all Arkane posts and one of those is something you *did* make a rule against.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 17:13 |
|
Arkane posted:On the topic of clarifications, not sure if you saw that the Marcott authors put the kibosh on their paper's conclusions (specifically the last sentence): Do you genuinely not get that the 20th century portion of the stack was in no way central to the point of the paper, I mean, are you just being willfully obtuse? Because claiming that the entire paper is invalid as you do here is beyond ridiculous. EDIT: Tamino's excellent clarification --> quote:The point of Marcott et al. is to study global temperature change in the past, not the present — specifically the last 11,300 years. In fact, for this reconstruction the number of proxies used dwindles as time goes forward, rather than dwindling as one goes back further in the past like in most other paleo reconstructions. One hardly needs Marcott et al. to tell us about recent global temperature changes; we already know what happened in the 20th century. For the given purpose, re-calibrating the proxy dates is absolutely the right thing to do. rivetz fucked around with this message at 19:38 on May 11, 2013 |
# ? May 11, 2013 19:30 |
|
rivetz posted:I saw the paper and the rebuttal, sure. Didn't see where that one sentence "put the kibosh on their paper's conclusions," perhaps in part because it didn't, at all. This is the NYT lede, in a story on the paper: quote:Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age. Again, this is the group's clarification a week later: quote:Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Those two statements are at odds with each other. And I could post more than simply the NYT here; that study received ample coverage because the authors severely misrepresented the results. That isn't even touching on the litany of other errors that McIntyre found and we discussed earlier. You're white washing here. This is the problem time and time again with the proxy reconstructions: they do not trend with global temperatures observations in the 20th century, but give the impression that they do. Edit for your edit: quote:One hardly needs Marcott et al. to tell us about recent global temperature changes; we already know what happened in the 20th century. Seriously, you do not see the problem with this statement? Come on! You cannot maintain that something is an accurate proxy of temperature if it does not move in accordance with observed temperature!!! That is a bullshit justification right there. What a clownish thing for him to say. Arkane fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 11, 2013 |
# ? May 11, 2013 19:46 |
|
Why didn't you quote what preceded "Thus"? It's kind of important to establish context. quote:Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Because it doesn't support your ramblings?
|
# ? May 11, 2013 20:20 |
|
Deleuzionist posted:Why didn't you quote what preceded "Thus"? It's kind of important to establish context. Actually, I'll limit it down even further: "Cannot be considered representative of global climate changes" versus "Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years" These sentences contradict each other. And the idea that you could piggyback observations onto proxies (the infamous "trick" of Climategate fame) and equate them with each other - as the blogger quoted by rivetz has done - is unacceptable. Just nonsense and non-science.
|
# ? May 11, 2013 20:33 |
|
Arkane posted:Actually, I'll limit it down even further: Am I wrong or missing something, or are you seriously accusing the researchers of making statements that contradict statements/conclusions subsequently made by the media?
|
# ? May 11, 2013 20:42 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 07:07 |
|
rivetz posted:Am I wrong or missing something, or are you seriously accusing the researchers of making statements that contradict statements/conclusions subsequently made by the media? Isn't completely misinterpreting scientific results and asking really vague questions that lead them to be able to 'truthfully' post ludicrous headlines like "scientests predict singularity in 20 years due to rise of electronic ovens" basically what the media does all the time?
|
# ? May 11, 2013 20:49 |