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.

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.

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.

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

TL;DR - NASA press release about how CO2 and greenhouse gases in the thermosphere protect us from solar flares is twisted until it means "CO2 cools the Earth." No one seems to notice or care that the original press release makes no mention of how this "discovery" turns the world of climate science on its head (because it doesn't).

Whhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Longanimitas posted:

Add another finding to the massive pile of evidence supporting climate change.

http://www.sportfishingmag.com/news/atlantic-ocean-northeast-warmest-150-years

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."

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.

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.

Caconym posted:

Ah, but haven't you ever seen how cold it gets when you empty a CO2 fire extinguisher?
Checkmate.

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.

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.

It will suck but north america will weather it fine enough I guess. Im more worried for countries like china, massive population, all on the coast with barely any agri land even now. Desperate people do desperate things and they might start looking to take from others so they can survive....Im thinking wars

Very biblical armageddon stuff. Rats trying to escape a burning ship

duck monster posted:

"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.

FullofAwe posted:

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?

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.

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.


this is another quote from the link, makes a very good point.

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.

Zalmun posted:

Someone forwarded this to me:

Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide (WSJ article)


Schmitt was an Apollo astronaut, so he must be credible, right???

Julio Lopez posted:

They certainly seem to have more credibility than you, forums poster Zalmun.

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!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?hp&_r=0

SpaceGirlArt posted:

Yet, less credibility than the vast majority of climate scientists.

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.

Julio Lopez posted:

They certainly seem to have more credibility than you, forums poster Zalmun.

Bizarro Watt posted:

I don't see why, they're not climate scientists either. Feel free to refute this.

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.

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.

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.

Bizarro Watt posted:

No he means the rate that the climate is changing, because it is.

That study was published two days ago, that's not what it concluded, and I don't see how it's relevant.

Arkane posted:

CO2 will raise temperature all else being equal, yes, but each incremental increase has an ever diminishing effect.

rivetz posted:

Could you clarify this statement, please.

quote:

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: 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.

Xandu posted:

I feel like I made a rule about Arkane posting in these threads, but now I can't remember.

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):

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.

What happened in the past is most definitely not like what happened in the 20th century. In spite of the low time resolution of the Marcott et al. reconstruction, the variations (even — perhaps especially — without the smoothing induced by the Monte Carlo procedure) are just not big enough to permit change like we’ve seen recently to be believable. In my opinion, the Marcott et al. reconstruction absolutely rules out any global temperature increase or decrease of similar magnitude with the rapidity we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years. And the fact is, we already know what happened in the 20th century.

Critics of the recent uptick, and of the re-dating procedure, either have utterly missed the point, or they staunchly refuse to see it and want everyone else not to see it either. Their foolishness is appalling.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

One hardly needs Marcott et al. to tell us about recent global temperature changes; we already know what happened in the 20th century.

Arkane posted:

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.

Deleuzionist posted:

Why didn't you quote what preceded "Thus"? It's kind of important to establish context.


Because it doesn't support your ramblings?

Arkane posted:

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.

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?