|
down with slavery posted:Saying we need 1600ppm of co2 in the air to see 3.6 degree temperature changes (over great periods of time) is just crazy, and even if it were true it's honestly irrelevant. Actually, going into what Kafka was talking about in regards to the other method of measuring climate sensitivity, the surface temperature would be far lower than +3.6C once we reached 1600ppm. It would take decades, even centuries, to reach the added 3.6C. That's the long-term, equilibrium temperature that would be reached. That's based on the mean finding of the paper, though. Their entire range is .9 - 3.0C. The underlying point in regards to that paper is a general trend towards diminishing our expectations for climate sensitivity. From AR4 to AR5, the numbers diminished, and studies published after AR5 (including the one just published today) are lowering our estimates even more. im gay posted:Can anyone recommend essential climate change books? Perhaps relating to climate change policy and the developing world? For climate change policy & the developing world, Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. You could also just watch the movie...the first 30 minutes of the documentary aren't that good, but the last hour is well worth the watch. Kafka Esq. posted:You're a jackass, you misread papers all the time, and I'm going to take the Met Office's definition of TCR and ECS over yours. gently caress you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qEsTXVj57M
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:42 |
|
Arkane posted:The underlying point in regards to that paper is a general trend towards diminishing our expectations for climate sensitivity. From AR4 to AR5, the numbers diminished, and studies published after AR5 (including the one just published today) are lowering our estimates even more. Are these the same IPCC reports that still aren't taking positive feedbacks into account? You seem so desperate to prove that Earth's climate isn't as sensitive as the scientific community is making it out to be. "a general trend towards diminishing our expectations for climate sensitivity" yes that's definitely the story of the science over the past 10 years. Get real. Even if the climate were less sensitive to emmissions than previously thought, outside of a few orders of magnitude (which we're not seeing here), it literally doesn't matter. "We did the math wrong, we're going to see an sea ice free arctic in 2017 instead of 2016". Pointless and the only reason you're posting it here is to create some doubt in the eyes of posters who haven't seen your lovely song and dance before. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3211218&userid=64257 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3151474&userid=64257 I like that you're been doing this poo poo for 5 years. Buckwheat Sings fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:04
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3211218&userid=64257 There were a few months of bliss where is was instaprobated for ever posting in the Climate Change thread. Xandu, why have you forsaken us?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Are these the same IPCC reports that still aren't taking positive feedbacks into account? You seem so desperate to prove that Earth's climate isn't as sensitive as the scientific community is making it out to be. "a general trend towards diminishing our expectations for climate sensitivity" yes that's definitely the story of the science over the past 10 years. Get real. I'm not desperate for anything. I've been posting for years about exaggerations in the climate models. Scientists are dialing back expectations for positive feedbacks GIVEN what we have observed, and therefore climate sensitivity estimates are also decreasing. It bears repeating that we've had around 14 years of stasis where there has not been any trend in global temperature. That is hard data. This contrasts quite strongly with climate models that expect .2C of warming per decade in the early 21st century. The forecasts are wrong. Therefore the assumptions that created the forecast (climate sensitivity) are being redone. I read a lot of climate stuff. This is the most alarmist, most delusional corner of the Internet on climate that I've encountered. You've got duck monster who thinks the pause is falsified data. You've got people unironically quoting some lunatic on the Internet saying we're going to get 20C of warming by 2100 based on 4th grade level math. There is not going to be an ice-free arctic, even for a single day, for decades, yet people think it can happen next year. If you're getting your knowledge from this thread, you would have such an overabundance of wrong information that you would be worse off than someone who doesn't know anything about this topic at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:06
|
|
Arkane posted:It bears repeating that we've had around 14 years of stasis where there has not been any trend in global temperature. That is hard data. This contrasts quite strongly with climate models that expect .2C of warming per decade in the early 21st century. The forecasts are wrong. Therefore the assumptions that created the forecast (climate sensitivity) are being redone. Dear god.  Look at how that red sliver slowed down guys for the past 8 years, we are in the clear, nothing to see here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUO23Y179pU - note how in the past 8 years nothing has changed. Duck monster, are you blind or something?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Dear god. That is a chart of OHC, not surface temperature. In fact the paper that began this whole shindig is based on far more intensive analysis of OHC than has been done in previous ECS studies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:11
|
|
Arkane posted:That is a chart of OHC, not surface temperature. Yes, and when you start talking about "the land isn't heating up as fast as we thought" maybe there's a explanation for that other than "the models are all wrong, climate is less sensitive" which is what you continue to espouse regardless of what evidence is put forth at your feet. Arkane posted:There is not going to be an ice-free arctic, even for a single day, for decades, yet people think it can happen next year. Here's a paper for you ya loving moron: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345 quote:Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3 (Kwok et al. 2009), one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover. (We do note that other published estimates also have large or indeterminate uncertainties.) At the same time, observational proxies of ice thickness (Maslanik et al. 2011) and independent model estimates (Polar Science Center 2011) of sea ice volume suggest a further decline of ice volume since 2007. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yes, and when you start talking about "the land isn't heating up as fast as we thought" maybe there's a explanation for that other than "the models are all wrong, climate is less sensitive" which is what you continue to espouse regardless of what evidence is put forth at your feet. The ocean taking in more heat than we anticipated would be pretty much exactly "the models are all wrong, climate is less sensitive." Needless to say, due to both volume and density, the ocean has the capacity to store multiple magnitudes more heat than the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:14
|
|
Arkane posted:The ocean taking in more heat than we anticipated would be pretty much exactly "the models are all wrong, climate is less sensitive." No it's not because the ocean just "taking in more heat" actually impacts the globe in negative ways outside of just temperature change. I know you know what ocean acidification is and are just being a dense retard, so I'm not going to bother explaining. Anyone reading the thread can take a look at any five pages and see a well written explanation by someone (probably explaining it to Arkane)
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No it's not because the ocean just "taking in more heat" actually impacts the globe in negative ways outside of just temperature change. I know you know what ocean acidification is and are just being a dense retard, so I'm not going to bother explaining. Anyone reading the thread can take a look at any five pages and see a well written explanation by someone (probably explaining it to Arkane) Heat sinking into the ocean is different than carbon dioxide dissolution/ocean acidification. You're getting off topic...what does this have to do with modeling surface temperature?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:19
|
|
Arkane posted:Heat sinking into the ocean is different than carbon dioxide dissolution/ocean acidification. You're getting off topic...what does this have to do with modeling surface temperature? Yes, yes I'm the one off topic. Heat sinking into the ocean as a result of The only explanation for this post I can think of is that the Earth system is just too complex for your brain to comprehend. Maybe you should stick to economics where rich people just get to make up the rules and pretend like they are truth. Doesn't work well in this thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
God damnit I see a bunch of new posts in a slow thread and hope that a new, informative discussion is b gently caress, great, it's just arkane again. I have you on ignore but unfortunately I can still read your bullshit below my reply box, so to add content and answer your question, it has everything to do with modeling systems, you twat, not just one attribute/variable thereof. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Also Arkane I'll agree to a toxx permaban that we see an ice free arctic before 2020. At least we can put an expiration date on your poo poo then.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Also Arkane I'll agree to a toxx permaban that we see an ice free arctic before 2020. At least we can put an expiration date on your poo poo then. Though noble in intent this will not work my friend because Arkane is a singularly awful human being with no shame and even less insight. Xandu has forsaken us indeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yes, yes I'm the one off topic. Heat sinking into the ocean as a result of Just talking past me now or what? If you have more heat sinking the ocean than you anticipated, that would imply you have a less sensitive climate. You are agreeing with me, but seem to be in denial. As to your sea ice thing from a few posts back, last year had a bigger sea ice volume/extent than 2007. You'd probably have to drop quite a few thousand nuclear weapons to generate enough heat to melt the arctic ice by 2016. IPCC estimates ~2050 at the earliest for one day without ice, and that is probably too alarmist given their track record. down with slavery posted:Also Arkane I'll agree to a toxx permaban that we see an ice free arctic before 2020. At least we can put an expiration date on your poo poo then. That is just you wasting $10 man. There is a 0% chance this happens. Physically impossible. I'd give you 1,000-1 odds on this. I'll toxx myself on that or whatever, but really just a completely delusional proposition. Arkane fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:30
|
|
Arkane posted:As to your sea ice thing from a few posts back, last year had a bigger sea ice volume/extent than 2007. You'd probably have to drop quite a few thousand nuclear weapons to generate enough heat to melt the arctic ice by 2016. IPCC estimates ~2050 at the earliest for one day without ice, and that is probably too alarmist given their track record. Does this mean you'll agree to the toxx permaban? What do you have to lose?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
What's the point of setting a toxx with a deadline of 2020. No one's going to remember and no one gives a poo poo about your double daring him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Just talking past me now or what? That would be terrible, to read a bunch of stuff and then ignore it the next time you posted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That would be terrible, to read a bunch of stuff and then ignore it the next time you posted. I get burned out pretty quick. As you can tell from the past page of this thread, it ends up being 1 against many. I don't have the time to take on 10 people at once. It'd be a full-time job arguing on the Internet. My Firefox is a wasteland of SA posts that I have responses typed out but I don't feel like spending 8 hours defending it even if I feel I am right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Should create a spreadsheet with predictions and look back at them every once in a while. Year with one-day of ice-free arctic. Year where we reach a yearly anomaly of +1C via GISS ( 100 in the J-D on this chart http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt ) Year where electric/hybrid/hydrogen/whatever outsell traditional automobiles Year that climate treaty is signed by China If someone wants to think of a few more, I'll create a Google Doc (or someone else can create it, just make sure anyone can edit it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:What's the point of setting a toxx with a deadline of 2020. No one's going to remember and no one gives a poo poo about your double daring him. Yeah, who in their right mind would post on a single forum for 6 years? Arkane posted:For climate change policy & the developing world, Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. You could also just watch the movie...the first 30 minutes of the documentary aren't that good, but the last hour is well worth the watch. I recommend The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel which is a book dedicated to explaining all of the bad science in Cool It. Bjorn Lomborg P.S is an adjunct professor of business which makes him an excellent source for great climate science. Also here is an excerpt from his wikipedia page: quote:Accusations of scientific dishonesty Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:48
|
|
Arkane posted:Should create a spreadsheet with predictions and look back at them every once in a while. Already thought of one, but I guess you're not biting? Arkane posted:I get burned out pretty quick. As you can tell from the past page of this thread, it ends up being 1 against many. I don't have the time to take on 10 people at once. It'd be a full-time job arguing on the Internet. My Firefox is a wasteland of SA posts that I have responses typed out but I don't feel like spending 8 hours defending it even if I feel I am right. Take ten people on at once? Try taking like 99% of the scientific community, since that's who you end up disputing most of the time. Seriously, you brought up the eight year pause in surface temperatures as if it's significant. it is not for a variety of reasons that I already explained to you   shrike82 posted:What's the point of setting a toxx with a deadline of 2020. No one's going to remember and no one gives a poo poo about your double daring him. A wild troll appears! The point is that maybe he'll be gone permanently as opposed to temporarily the last time he shat this thread to oblivion. Maybe you have a point other than just searching for my posts and disputing them because you're angry I called you an oppressor in another thread?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Should create a spreadsheet with predictions and look back at them every once in a while. In light of Xanadu not autoprobating, can I propose a policy of all replies to Arkane be: Buckwheat Sings posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3211218&userid=64257 Because really, any engagement is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:55
|
|
Claverjoe posted:In light of Xanadu not autoprobating, can I propose a policy of all replies to Arkane be: Someone needs to make that available without archives so that everyone can enjoy that smackdown.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Rather than bothering to scream back into the void whenever Arkane posts, I find it's much more amusing and relevant to head to somewhere like The Daily Climate and pick any recent news article. If it doesn't directly prove him wrong, it's guaranteed to prove him irrelevant.quote:The World Meteorological Organization announced Monday that they had confirmed that 2013 was the sixth warmest year on record, tied with 2007, in their annual report on the world’s weather and climate. quote:The organization's Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate showed also that despite the oft-reported global warming "hiatus," 13 of the 14 warmest years in recorded weather history have all occurred in the opening years of the 21st century. Arkane will still be arguing that climate sensitivity has been overestimated and pretending to not understand ocean warming when Miami is underwater. Edit: But take heart little guy! Your side is winning anyway! Hooray  quote:The climate change deniers have won TACD fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Take ten people on at once? Try taking like 99% of the scientific community, since that's who you end up disputing most of the time. Seriously, you brought up the eight year pause in surface temperatures as if it's significant. it is not for a variety of reasons that I already explained to you Temperature has been in relative stasis since 2001, so it will be 14 years unless 2014 heats up real quick. There is a 30 year trend that should also be referenced, but due to the pause, that trend is of course also diminishing. e: TACD pointing out that 2013 was the Xth hottest year on record does nothing to dispel the trend. The question isn't whether the Earth is warming, but how fast. The models are seriously exaggerating the speed. TACD posted:Arkane will still be arguing that climate sensitivity has been overestimated and pretending to not understand ocean warming when Miami is underwater. In the time I've been on the planet, the sea level in Miami has risen by 2.6 inches. It'll probably rise ~6 inches before I'm dead. Another delusional prediction that has no basis in science: Miami will be underwater in our lifetimes (or anywhere close). Arkane fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Arkane posted:In the time I've been on the planet, the sea level in Miami has risen by 2.6 inches. It'll probably rise ~6 inches before I'm dead. Another delusional prediction that has no basis in science: Miami will be underwater in our lifetimes (or anywhere close). That high tide was not feet above average high tide (so far as I can tell I was mistaken previously) - it was inches. What happens when Miami is partially flooded at every high tide? What happens when a storm, or God forbid, a hurricane comes through? Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Temperatures have been stagnant for 14 years because temperatures have been stagnant for 14 years. Those are the hard facts, the rock solid evidence, the stiff and straight data. Furthermore temperatures have been stagnant for 14 years. Did you see this latest study? It is very interesting, especially in light of the meta-fact that temperatures have been stagnant for 14 years. Did you see this latest article, that sort of somewhat implies temperatures have been stagnant for 14 years? I implore you to understand, temperatures have either been stagnant for 14 years or my name is not Arkane. Temperatures have been stagnant for 14 years or you are a delusional type who thinks Miami will be flooded by noon tomorrow. There you go, summary of the last however many Arkane posts.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Miami was partially flooded this year past year by an annual ultra-high tide. Miami has been flooding forever. Every 10 years, it is going to get a little more than 1 inch worse if sea level rise continues on its linear trend. Exponential increases have been bandied about, but sea level rise has been linear since we started observing it with a satellite in the early 1990s. Sea level rise is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly slow moving, especially as compared to the speed at which humanity is getting more advanced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:06
|
|
Arkane posted:Sea level rise is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly slow moving, especially as compared to the speed at which humanity is getting more advanced. Remember how all that ocean water was getting warmer unexpectedly and how it isn't related to climate change? What do you think warmer water than we expect + ice means w/r/t our models regarding sea level rise?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Arkane you never addressed my post about your recommended book. Do you still recommend it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Remember how all that ocean water was getting warmer unexpectedly and how it isn't related to climate change? What do you think warmer water than we expect + ice means w/r/t our models regarding sea level rise? I mean there's no doubt that thermal expansion is going to increase sea levels (in fact it's the main driver), so I'm on the same page with you there. But going back to what I said earlier, the ocean has a far larger heat capacity than does the atmosphere due to volume and density. So it's not as scary as you are making it out to be. That graph that you posted earlier, if expressed in degrees C, would be ~flat for the ocean even though it has taken in all of that heat (according to the study). Salt Fish posted:Arkane you never addressed my post about your recommended book. Do you still recommend it? Yeah, I agree with Bjorn Lomborg virtually 100% in principle on climate policies as they relate the developing world. Resources should be devoted to efficiently helping the developing world to get out of poverty, rather than devoting large number of resources inefficiently toward a far future event of undetermined magnitude. The cost/benefit of these two actions compared to each other is ludicrously imbalanced in favor of the former. Whether he got specifics wrong here or there, I do not know. Arkane fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:14
|
|
Arkane posted:But None of this matters and is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Temperatures have not stopped rising, the heat is just in the ocean instead of on land. The fact that the oceans can absorb more co2 and heat than we previously anticipated is not a good thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The fact that the oceans can absorb more co2 and heat than we previously anticipiated is not a good thing. Why is this a bad thing, exactly? The oceans were ~2C warmer in the early Holocene (~8000 years ago) than they are today, so its not like we could even wreck that ecosystem with heat if we tried. down with slavery posted:None of this matters and is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Temperatures have not stopped rising, the heat is just in the ocean instead of on land. It is just plainly false to argue that temperature has not stopped rising when it has (very likely temporarily) done so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Miami has been flooding forever. Every 10 years, it is going to get a little more than 1 inch worse if sea level rise continues on its linear trend. Exponential increases have been bandied about, but sea level rise has been linear since we started observing it with a satellite in the early 1990s. Sea level rise may be linear on average across the entire world, but it depends greatly on location. I've gone over this before in this thread. The definition of sea level at a particular place is relative - it is the mean between high and low tides, which can greatly vary from place to place. As I also mentioned previously in this thread, there may have been nearly 2 inches/decade rise in sea level near Miami in the last 53 years. This could be caused by land subsidence in conjunction with rising waters. If you'll recall, additional weight on land can cause increased land subsidence. Not only man-made structures, but glaciers are certainly culprits of this phenomenon. What if these periodic floods are also making the land subside?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:24
|
|
Arkane posted:Why is this a bad thing, exactly? The oceans were ~2C warmer in the early Holocene (~8000 years ago) than they are today, so its not like we could even wreck that ecosystem with heat if we tried. For one, it's not just heat affecting the oceans, it's the actual CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere. But beyond that, what were sea levels like in the early Holocene? Even better, what did the ice sheets on land look like then as well?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:For one, it's not just heat affecting the oceans, it's the actual CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere. But beyond that, what were sea levels like in the early Holocene? Even better, what did the ice sheets on land look like then as well? You keep sidestepping points. Why is the ocean taking in more heat than we anticipated "not a good thing"? Wouldn't the ocean taking in more heat necessarily make climate sensitivity estimates too high? You're wrong on both topics here, but you keep switching to talk about something else. To answer your question (and I don't know how it relates), sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age and will continue to rise until the next ice age. Sea levels in the early Holocene were far below where we are today. And of course the ice sheets were more expansive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:32
|
|
Arkane posted:You keep sidestepping points. quote:You're wrong on both topics here, but you keep switching to talk about something else. I'm really not though, I'm trying to illustrate how all of these things are interconnected and how what you see as "underestimation" is really just the original predicted effects manifesting themselves in unexpected ways (which, if you read the science, we expect). quote:Why is the ocean taking in more heat than we anticipated "not a good thing"? Because of what happens when the ocean takes in more heat. quote:Wouldn't the ocean taking in more heat necessarily make climate sensitivity estimates too high? No, because I look at the climate change problem(and really- it's not just about climate but about our economic systems and ideologies) from a holistic perspective where surface air temperatures are not the only issue worth talking about. quote:To answer your question (and I don't know how it relates), sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age and will continue to rise until the next ice age. Sea levels in the early Holocene were far below where we are today. And of course the ice sheets were more expansive. It relates because although the temperature of the ocean might have been the same 8000 years ago, it doesn't mean that we can say "ocean gets two degrees hotter -> the ocean looks like its in the holocene". The ocean has more levers than temperature and we're pulling a lot of them. No, the ocean's ecosystem will not crash as a result of heat increases. But nobody ever said that
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Sea level rise may be linear on average across the entire world, but it depends greatly on location. I've gone over this before in this thread. The definition of sea level at a particular place is relative - it is the mean between high and low tides, which can greatly vary from place to place. Assuming 2 inches per decade, do you think this is an insurmountable problem for Miami, or even a difficult one? Obvious answer is I think no... ...and then the logical next step is to discuss a poorer area. But then you have to adjust for the fact that said poorer area will develop over time. And two, three, four, five decades down the line, when the issue becomes a problem, said poor area could be the equivalent of Miami today in terms of ability to address the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:36
|
|