|
the panacea posted:Is there a site that provides a comprehensive overview over the current and planned legislation concerning carbon emissions etc. in the top 10 countries? You should be able to find all of them via Google searches. I'll do a brief recap, though. In the US, the best hope is a carbon trading scheme, which did pass the House of Representatives. This is, however, incredibly unlikely to pass the Senate, even in a second Obama term, due to the economy and concerns over re-election. You could also discuss the push to get more nuclear plants approved. In China there is none (although they don't have legislation in the traditional sense). Their position on emissions reductions with regards to any sort of UN treaty is that they want to be able to continue the unfettered increase of emissions until 2025 or 2030, after which point they will agree to a freeze of some kind. India is in general agreement with China, iirc. No clue on Brazil, probably the same as India and China. Japan tried to work out some sort of national carbon trading scheme but it was stymied. Some local governments are attempting to go solo. The EU, which encompasses most of Europe has the EU ETS, which is somewhere between "mixed results" and "failure" in terms of implementation. As far as any new progress, the danger of countries defaulting on their debt is preoccupying their time and attention for the foreseeable future. The UK has had a mixed history. I believe they technically have a carbon tax, but it was implemented many years ago. Gasoline/petrol prices are ridiculously expensive in UK, because most of what you are paying is a tax to the government. Australia just recently passed a carbon tax but it hasn't been implemented yet, so no clues yet as to its efficacy or effects.
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:The monthly global temperature anomaly for February 2012 is 0.3654, according to the NOAA. It's not apples to apples. They use different periods. NOAA uses 1971-2000, while UAH uses a base period of 1981 to 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
duck monster posted:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9192494/Climate-scientists-are-losing-the-public-debate-on-global-warming.html Since you called me out by name, I am guessing I am allowed to respond. Let's just consider for a second that man you are quoting as gospel: James Hansen. James Hansen - with no background or training in the field - is still predicting multi-meter sea level rise by 2100: Hansen's sea level prediction (done via the highly scientific "back of the napkin" approach) from a few months back:  Predictions from actual scientists who study this using actual statistics:  Hansen's prediction overlaid against scientists:  Similar to Hansen putting together a random graph for sea level rise, just randomly predicting bad events via THE MAGIC OF EXPONENTS is how Paul Ehrlich became a household name. Ehrlich's predictions were an egregious case of scientific models gone wrong (Ehrlich went so far as to suggest remedies like eugenics, forced abortions, and an authoritarian world government were required). But anyway, let's back on to the article which you posted, which CORRECTLY pointed out that climate scientists have been consistently overselling the dangers and imminence of global warming. Hansen himself gave testimony before Congress in 1988 and told of 3 scenarios: one where we continued with BAU (scenario A), one where we started to cut back on fossil fuels in 1988 (B), and one where we aggressively cut back on fossil fuels starting in 1988 (C). We're BELOW his C scenario at present in terms of temperature, which is curious since we've pretty much blown the A scenario out of the water in terms of carbon emissions.  Should send up a few warning signs about Hansen's predictive prowess. Similarly, actual temperature observations have tracked below the IPCC modeled mean. Moving average/trend is +.001C per year since 2001 (.01C/decade). Modeled-mean temperature growth is right around .020C per year (.20C/decade).   (second graph can be a bit misleading; everything before the year 2000 is a hindcast so it is 100% accurate pre-2000. post-2000 the models and the observations go in different directions). Finally, James Hansen has also intertwined himself incredibly tightly with politics, blurring the line between science and activism (he'll likely give an acceptance speech about how doomed Earth is). Commenting on the Keystone Pipeline recently, he said it would be "game over" for the planet. That's right, if the Keystone Pipeline is built, our planet is done. So it's kind of bizarre that with one hand you embrace the questionable Hansen and with the other you blame some stupid bogeyman dressed up as the "arkanes of the world" for events which may not even come to pass. Lost in your blame game are of course China and India, who have hundreds of millions living in poverty and aren't going to sacrifice economic growth anytime soon (nor should they, from their perspective). So your pipe dream of getting emissions reductions is just never going to happen on a global scale. That's why it's a foolish and silly task to be continuing down that road. [[[[every graph in this thread except the one created by me was created by a scientist(s) who believes that global warming is happening]]]]]
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Benny Peiser is an illqualified crank who was discredited half a decade ago for a bullshit paper he published, and I'm really not interested anymore Arkane. We know climate change is happening. We also know its athropogenic and we know that serious consequences have already started. It's quite a strange thing that many threads and many years after the fact you still try to claim that I don't believe that the climate is changing. It's almost like you don't even read my posts (I think this may be the case). The big questions remain: how fast changes will come, how much of these changes are anthropogenic, and how we can best remedy any adverse effects that are coming our way. Your misconceptions aside, we don't have sufficient answers to any of these questions. Yes the science has moved on from Hansen's early predictions. Quite right. I pointed out how the IPCC AR4 climate models have performed poorly to date. At the VERY LEAST, this would indicate that the models have quite a lot of work to do in order to produce predictions around which we can create sound energy policy. Unless you want us to rush into energy policies based on poor climate models. As far as Hansen and sea level rise, he is ill-equipped because he has no background in glaciology or sea levels or, frankly, good statistical modeling. PS: who is Benny Peiser and what relation is it to me?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Don't fool yourself; if the climate denialists didn't exist we still wouldn't do anything about it because the kind of changes necessary will never, ever, ever happen. It's a tragedy of the commons on a global scale. Without really touching on the whole socialist ranting direction this thread has taken, please realize that there is a massive, massive, massive flaw in your worrying, and it is a failure to account for technological advancement. You cannot just assume the status quo when our technological horizons are being expanded at an incredibly rapid pace. There are decades before any of these adverse effects will take hold, if they ever do. The world will be UNRECOGNIZABLY and UNFATHOMABLY more advanced and better equipped to deal with problems that may arise. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Still I stand by my long held conviction that in 50 years time if we're looking across a burning and ruined world , and our kids ask us "How the gently caress did this happen?", we owe it to them to present a list of names and addresses of the climate denialists, conservative politicians and billionaires who threw a spanner into our survival attempts, such that our children might drag them from their homes in the dead of the night and hang them by the neck from bridges. It would seem the least consolation we could leave the impending generations we've betrayed. First of all, this post is pretty drat deranged. I'm not sure if you're self-reflective about what you just typed, but you probably should be. This reads like a murder fantasy. But I am wondering...what is going to happen in 50 years? You seem to have these visions of doom, almost as if you want them to occur just to be proved right or something. Climate changes are FAR too slow for anything on that type of time scale to lead to some sort of apocalypse.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:From reading this thread I've gathered (please tell me if this is inaccurate) that our best-case scenario for avoiding Atheist Rapture is a revolution of awareness on the local scale, destabilizing the grip of oil companies on the government, and putting into practice a combined bunch of bizarre schemes that hopefully don't have any negative side effects (filling the Sahara with eucalyptus, manufacturing engineered carbon algae, setting up thorium reactors). By the time you turn 55 in 2050, the Earth will probably be about .5 degrees warmer and the sea levels will be about 4 inches higher, and the remaining non-humanoid homo sapiens will have long since abandoned the apocalyptic predictions of yesteryear. You'll be okay. Hopefully in the interim, we've worked towards solving the gargantuan socioeconomic problem of poverty in the third world. So maybe you can divert your youthful energies toward that pursuit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Welcome back to the Climate Change thread Arkane. Perhaps you'd care to address the actual science posted in this thread, even this page, as opposed to your usual uncited and baseless predictions about temperature rise over the next 40 years. Science left this thread many months ago. It's a matter of numerical fact that temperatures have been rising by ~.13C per decade for over 30 years now (using 1979/satellite launch as a starting point...GISS, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH all in agreement on that number). Not only do we not see acceleration in the data, but the climate model predictions from IPCC AR4 are now rejecting: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/arima11-mc-corrected-gistemp-trends-inconsistent-with-0-2cdecade/ This is called math. It's also a matter of numerical fact that sea levels have been rising by ~3cm per decade for about 20 years now (using 1992 as a starting point, again a satellite launch). We don't see acceleration in that data either. There's also the fact that an indeterminate amount of that rise would be occurring whether humanity were here or not, by virtue of the fact that our planet is still emerging from the last ice age (the previous interglacial, when human civilization didn't exist, had sea levels rising to many feet higher than we are today). So when you combine these two facts with the scientific fact that each new molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere has a diminishing greenhouse gas effect, please explain to me on what basis you or anyone else is predicting apocalyptic calamity? Feedback loops causing catastrophic warming is a theory. A theory that has yet to be born out by any data or observations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...orts/?mobile=nc Your first link is completely consistent with what I posted. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by pasting it. Your second link is a pre-AR4 paper. We've had a plethora of data since the year 2000 which now show the models from AR4 are biased warm, and this bias is statistically significant. The assumptions underpinning those models should be examined. Your third link explains that sea levels will risen 280mm to 340mm by 2100. This is pretty much exactly what I posted originally. You should do more than just haphazardly copy and paste from Google, you should do more than lob insults...you should probably try and educate yourself on this issue. Edit to respond to your edit: a lovely poster posted:PS. There is a reason the data you are using starts in 1992 and 1979 and ignore sea temperatures and it isn't because your "science" is thorough and complete. My starting points are not random nor intended to mislead. They are satellite launches, as I said. The (first) sea level satellite was launched into space in 1992. Its measurements are posted quarterly here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ The (first) satellite which measures global temperature was launched in 1979. Its measurements are posted monthly here: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html and here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_2012_v5.5.png Arkane fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Aureon posted:This paper shows acceleration. You just made the claim that there's no acceleration. Because you're talking about two different time periods. The contention in the press release was that the temperature from 1971 to 2010 is growing at a faster rate than pre-1971. Completely correct. My point was that within the sample of 1971 to 2010 or 1979 to 2012, we're not seeing acceleration in temperature rise predicted by climate models. Temperature has to accelerate VERY rapidly in order to get to some of the apocalyptic projections bandied about here. Do you recognize this? Aureon posted:Having read the thread less than a week ago from the start, i'm feeling an awkward sensation of deja-vu. Repetition is required when people don't grasp basic scientific and mathematical facts. tatankatonk posted:Arkane, you are awful and boring in these climate chamge threads. Every single AGW thread you run in, spew out a cloud of squid ink, and when the posters who time and background background in envirosci or climatology finally take the trouble to painstakingly deconstruct your disingenuous bad faith lies, the ones you shroud in nonsense numbers and made up graphs, you run away again. Not lying, and not posting in bad faith either. And the numbers aren't nonsense. This is like the liberal version of rejecting poll numbers, instead you're rejecting observations and statistics. Like I said, the science is out the window here. I'm flabbergasted that people ignore what is right in front of them. Arkane fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
grapesmoker posted:The acceleration of sea level rise happens over much longer periods of time: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ You guys/gals need to make the distinction here...you keep talking about whether it accelerated in the distant past (pre-1970, or thereabouts, compared to now), when I am speaking specifically of whether it is accelerating in recent observations or will accelerate in the future. Continually posting links discussing accelerations in the early 20th Century is missing the point of what I am discussing; I am disputing that or in disagreement. The questions I am seeking to answer: is there evidence that we will see catastrophic warming? If there is, what is it? And to answer that we're looking at observational data and comparing it against what the models are predicting. Deleuzionist posted:Which projections specifically, and what is the matter with them, o weaver of weasel words? The IPCC's projections from their most recent publication, the 4th Assessment Report (AR4). In the 12 years since their models began, our observations are "colder" than predicted. And we've yet to see any reason why they would speed up besides hypothetical discussions of feedback loops. We still don't have a firm grip on whether cloud cover changes will have a warming or cooling effect. It should be crystal clear that any predictions of catastrophic warming are contingent upon severe warming feedbacks. CO2 in and of itself will not do it, because as I said, each additional molecule in the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Shai Hulud posted:Any suggestion that markets are capable of protecting the environment as well as, or better than, government should be tempered by the reality that a capitalist model (of which most sane people, including me, are supporters) will consume a given resource until factors intervene to make it inefficient to do so. The environment is a commons, and it's equally trite and true to trot out the phrase "tragedy of the commons" when explaining why policy is probably a necessary ingredient. Even ceding that you are completely correct here, you face the problem of a policy solution being impossible. China and India (and probably Argentina, Brazil, etc.) are NOT going to agree to any climate compact that would lead to decarbonization any time remotely soon. And China is emitting CO2 at rates higher than the US and higher than the entire continent of Europe. China gives no fucks, and why should they? They have a few hundred million people still living in poverty. You really better hope there are technological solutions if you expect catastrophic warming due to CO2 emissions. (But as I elucidated earlier, we have no signs in recent data that catastrophic warming is at all imminent, so its perhaps a moot point)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
That solar forcing thing does not appear to be accurate. Watts Up is not really the place to read reactions. They are hyper partisan. Anyway...first and foremost, the organization is vastly improved, and the fact that they're breaking out whole chapters to discuss certain important topics is also an improvement. That they have an entire chapter devoted to assessing climate models is pretty drat great. AR5 looks like an evolutionary leap forward over AR4. --- I started with the paleo section, the biggest source of contention from AR4. Assuming a basic understanding of the jargon, it should be fairly straight forward to read through it. I will say that the climate reconstructions that have drawn the bulk of the ire are not as front-and-center as they were previously. And the language has softened substantially regarding the MWP which they are now calling the "Medieval Climate Anomaly": they are assigning a medium confidence that we are warmer than we were during that time period. I'd still submit that that is overconfident, because the veracity of these proxies are in serious doubt, but alas, some progress has been made in toning down the verbiage. On sea level, current levels are somewhere around 5-10 meters below the previous interglacial high. Sea level rise, in an absolute sense, is normal. Medium confidence that the current rate of sea level rise is anomalous over the past two centuries. There is a medium confidence that the decrease in arctic sea ice is anomalous over the past two centuries. Coupled with that, a high confidence that the arctic is more sensitive than other areas of the globe to higher temperatures. There is only a pithy acknowledgement of southern hemisphere sea ice (currently increasing); I guess that isn't interesting. Moving on... They have devoted a whole chapter to clouds and aerosols, reflecting that this is still the biggest mystery variable in climate predictions/modeling. In fact, in Ch9 they acknowledge that modeling clouds is the cause for the vast divergence in the climate model predictions. All of the models do still appear to have clouds as a positive feedback (i.e. they expect cloud cover changes to amplify warming rather than dampen warming), which may be a source of future contention. On the topic of climate model predictions, there is at least a graphical acknowledgement of the warming bias in the AR4 models: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Changed_Baseline.jpg No written acknowledgement apparently, but admittedly I haven't delved into that one yet. I haven't read the sea level projection section yet, but I've heard it is Rahmstorf's high predictions versus others less high predictions. Lots of disagreement in that chapter. And on the topic of extreme events, it looks like a reversal from AR4 in that they are assigning a low probability that we are causing an increase in extreme events. I'm getting that from Roger Pielke Jr. reaction on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr Overall, this seems like a drat good report, far more thorough than AR4.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Oh hey we just got the first accumulated snow of the season in Omaha. 0.6in as measured by the local NWS. This winter's probably going to be like the last one and just like the last one everyone's going to say it's a fluke and global warming is hokum and bunk and a librul conspiracy to make their life all socialistic and poo poo. How did you go from the first accumulated snow in Omaha to a murder/destruction fantasy about your neighbors? To address your post, anomalous weather like a warm winter or a cold winter is to be expected and would have very little to do with global warming or a lack thereof. You'd also be very unlikely to be able to personally detect global warming however much you think that your personal experiences have changed. If, for instance, you are 25 years old (1987), the average annual temperature is about .3 degrees warmer than when you were growing up, give or take. That's indiscernible. The global temperature has also remained relatively constant for over a decade now. Don't get fooled by recency bias. Finally, if you're suggesting a tight correlation between tornado activity and the rise in temperatures, I suggest you read what scientists think about that and then report back. You may not be suggesting that, though, so just ignore this if you're not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Nowhere in the post did I say or even imply that temperatures are not rising. Because that is not what I believe. a lovely poster posted:You're right, there's no way that 2012 was actually the hottest year on record, it's just in people's heads! "Recency bias", man, that's rich. First of all, the link you posted is for contiguous United States, a very small percentage of the globe. Global 2012 temperature will definitely not be a record. As to the second point, the temperature anomaly has remained relatively constant for about 11 years now man. Look at any graph if you don't believe. I posted one from the IPCC a few posts ago. You can find the NOAA data here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat On a 30 year scale, we're rising at a decadal rate of ~.13C, and warming is likely to continue at a rate none of us yet know. The reason I brought up the constancy in the recent anomaly data is to highlight the fact that whatever extremes he perceives are likely due to local changes that do not represent global trends (such as warm winters or cold winters). Arkane fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
seniorservice posted:Guess what's on the front page of foxnews! The story is true, though, and the story reads fair to me as both Huertas and Spencer get equal time and make equally valid points. The source is not bloggers; the source is the draft of the UN's AR5 report. The draft UN report (the links to each chapter were posted here a few pages back) shows that the climate models have overestimated warming. It's an inescapable mathematical fact. This has been true with every single UN report thus far: FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4. I made an OP to this effect some years ago and have been saying it ever since. And on that same note, sea levels are not rising as anticipated as of yet either (although 2011 and 2012 both had sharp increases after sea levels declined in 2010). Meanwhile, though, CO2 is increasing at a faster pace than expected (sup China), which shows either that natural causes are dampening warming effects (aerosols, solar, ENSO, what have you) or that the underlying assumptions of strong positive feedback is wrong or exaggerated. I point this out at a lot but it's worth repeating: each new molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect on global climate. The CO2 in and of itself will not warm the planet to a dangerous point any time soon; positive feedbacks, however, could warm the planet to a dangerous degree if accurate. These revolve around changes to cloud cover and reflectivity of the earth (amongst other things) that amplify the warming. Changes in cloud cover remains a bone of contention, as it has for years. Whether these positive feedback assumptions that the climate models rely upon are right or wrong is not remotely clear yet. If the very recent trends (10 years of little warming, ~35 years of .17/decade C) relative to modeled predictions are indicative of future warmth, we are certainly severely exaggerating the risk. Hence the reason that I have scoffed at some of the apocalypse planning in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Davethulhu posted:So I've been seeing this image bandied around: That looks accurate at first blush. There is 0 doubt at this point that temperatures are running below the IPCC model mean. That has been the case for over a decade. This is right from the horse's mouth (leaked working copy of AR5):  Red line is the AR4 projection (the mean of the various climate models); black line is observations. And that's only through 2011. Temperature in 2012 was roughly the same as 2011 so you can extend that divergence out another year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Edit: Also, please don't do that thing where you drastically crop a graph in order to make it look more favorable to your position (which incidentally removes an entire axis). Here's a fuller version of that graph, taken from a climate denialist site so you can be sure if it's fudging numbers it's doing so in a way favorable to you: Not sure you know what you are looking at there. Everything pre-2000 in that graph is a hindcast; everything post-2000 is a forecast with data unknown. The forecasting abilities of the models is what is at issue. So zooming out, in your case, has actually done a disservice. I didn't crop the image to "make it look more favorable to my position." I don't even really think there is a position to be had here; the numbers are the numbers. It was the most easily accessed version of the picture as it just appeared in an article I read. That's also not a fuller version. That looks like a similar version, and it has a lot of the same data, but it's not the same graph. It stops at the year 2010, whereas the image that I posted, which is from an IPCC pdf of the working draft of the AR5 report that I also posted in this thread, took observations through to 2011. Uranium Phoenix posted:Hey Arkane, I asked you some questions awhile back, and you never got around to answering them: I had a few replies written in Firefox but lost them all when I had to reinstall the software. I don't think we have evidence of whether there will be positive or negative feedback cycles. It could be that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide alters cloud cover in such a way that it dampens the warming effect. I think that is a perfectly reasonable possibility. It may be wrong, but it's a reasonable possibility. Incidentally, I think strong positive feedbacks are also a reasonable possibility, with the problem being that we have yet to see evidence for it. From a perspective of more efficient and cheaper energy, I think burning less coal and building more nuclear plants would be a huge net positive. It's just a "like duh, obviously" sort of conclusion and the only reason there is resistance is because of political will. I don't think not doing so will lead to ruin, though. I think wind, tidal, and solar are all promising technologies but are nowhere near cost effective yet and (for the most part) rely upon government subsidies to even be deployed in the first place. I do think technology will catch up relatively soon, especially on solar. The amount of energy that hits this planet daily is just massive. As to your sentence that I am in "denial that climate change is an imminent problem (and ignores plenty of evidence that contradicts that denial)," what is the evidence for the imminent problem? I know of one, the potential for bleaching in coral reefs due to increased carbonic acid, but beyond that I am unaware of these imminent problems you are referring to. We have satellites measuring quite a lot of things right now. Temperature, sea temperature, sea level rise, hurricane activity are all measured by satellites now. In none of these four observational sets do we see imminent problems. If we look at how weather-related disasters are effecting the world, we don't see dire trends there either:  So please source the evidence that climate change is an "imminent problem"? To who and when? Dovetailing into that, I think the answer on the timescale question is that I don't know. I don't think we have a firm grasp on projecting future changes yet. Finally, I think your last query has a glaring problem: there is no meaningful "we." China and India have made it crystal clear that they do not plan on decreasing their emissions any time soon, and China is far and away the leader in emissions at this point (closing in on DOUBLE the United States) with India in 3rd and climbing. I think Brazil is in the same boat. These developing countries with massive populations are not going to work against the economic interest of their people at any point within the next decade+. That's not to say that they aren't trying to develop cheaper and cleaner energy, that is documented and kudos to them if they do, but I think the offer that was being bandied about from China/India was that they could freely increase emissions until 2025. By that point, those two nations could be emitting more than the entirety of US/Europe combined right now. So I think the political reality of emissions is that we are going to live in a world of increasing emissions for the foreseeable future and if we are really going to face extreme adverse effects because of it (the veracity of which I doubt), we should prepare for adaptation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:Here's a direct example of how logic doesn't enter into global warming debates: a recent paper showed that our planet was in the middle of a cooling period before the most recent spike in warming. This is not a good example, actually. That paper contains significant errors with his ocean core data and is hopefully going to be withdrawn (the authors are preparing a response to Steve McIntyre, as was passed along to me when I contacted a reporter -- the last authors to do this eventually withdrew their paper due to errors). His temperature reconstruction yields a significant downturn in 20th century temperature proxies compared to previous centuries, but he re-dated a large number of proxies which resulted in an uptick. For example, relevant ocean core proxies which didn't "fit" were deleted:  and proxies were significantly re-dated, some by as many as 1000 years, which resulted in this change:  Perhaps most damning of all, Marcott had DONE THIS RECONSTRUCTION BEFORE in his PhD thesis in 2011, yielding this:  This is the equivalent graph from his published and peer-reviewed report in March 8th's Science:  McIntyre defends his peer reviewers a bit against out and out incompetence, implying that Marcott was being intentionally deceptive: quote:The type of analysis that I do is well beyond what peer reviewers do or can reasonably be expected to do. Peer reviewers can’t be expected to vet everything. I also think it is apparent that his motives were in the wrong place given the media blitz that the authors/co-authors did. Compare part of Marcott's response to Steve... quote:Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. ... ...with the NYT's lede on the story: 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. That sentence is not even close to correct just based on the paper itself (uncertainty bands), doubly incorrect when you compare it to Marcott's statement about it not being "robust", and triply incorrect when you realize that Marcott significantly skewed his data. That type of hype is just a lie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Arkane, do you and Dusz plan out when you're going to disrupt this thread? Should we expect him back once you've left again? Can we have five pages without some moron just ruining them? Why are you even bringing up the NYT? Nope, but I appreciate your trolling as always...I was going to post about the study a week ago but figured nobody would care or understand what was going on. Since somebody just brought it up, I thought I could open a discussion on it. A paper published in Science having to be withdrawn for the author faking results would be kind of a big deal. Unsurprising for the paleoclimatology field, though, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Be careful wasting time responding to Arkane, any time he's backed into a corner you know what happens Could be a good point if not for the fact that I rewrote the response to the guy from scratch. Anyone else have flaccid trolls they want to whip out?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Probably, but the amount of bad information posted in this thread is like a mating call.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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? The clarifications were made after their PR tour promoting the study's findings (findings which they misrepresented in said PR tour). For instance, here is one of the coauthors in a Youtube interview with the NYT's Revkin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgnMuKuVXzU. Notice the shape he makes with his hand, despite the fact that their later clarification indicates that this is not their conclusion. Also calls it a hockey stick, which is again, not their findings with the later clarification. Revkin wrote this about their clarification: "There’s also room for more questions — one being how the authors square the caveats they express here with some of the more definitive statements they made about their findings in news accounts." Arkane fucked around with this message at 21:09 on May 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Yeah its actually quite interesting to see a troll post, then a moderator commenting on said poster's tendency to troll, followed up by the same troll acknowledging the moderator on him about to bring the troll, and finally the guy actually posts and people still don't get it. Nothing in any of my posts is a troll, and although I've been called a denier probably close to 2-3 million times (conservatively), I am a firm believer that humans are changing earth's climate. So it's basically just people lying/trolling for shits and giggles. I read about the climate topic a few hours a week, and have been for years; I've read hundreds of climate papers in my life, including much of the AR4 IPCC report. Not throwing that out there as some sort of dorky brag, but just to drive home that I would consider myself to be both very passionate and very knowledgeable on the topic. But let's veer off the topic of certified world's worst monster Arkane. If you want a jumping off point to respond to: I think alarmists, by and large, are disconnected from reality, and have 0 grasp on the science but love talking about their apocalypse fantasies. That the root cause of their belief that the Earth is going to hell in a hand basket is political and probably a hatred of capitalism. That is many of the posters in this thread. Anti-intellectual alarmism actually works against the industrialization of poverty-stricken countries that need it desperately, but I guess that is a different point. The reality of climate change is much different than the alarmists would have you believe. Going to hell in a hand basket is certainly a possibility, but an unlikely one, and one for which we have 0 evidence. As of April 2013, temperatures have been flat for well over a decade, with a longer-term trend around .15 C per decade. That is not an inaccurate or misleading statement: you can find it any graph or instrumental record (NASA, NOAA, CRU, UAH, RSS). The current speculation by alarmists is not that they are wrong about fast accelerating heat, but that the heat is all there, but lurking in the deep oceans. Certainly possible, but that would also speak to our lack of understanding how the climate system works if we failed to predict that. The fact remains that the climate models are not remotely accurate so far. This is not new news either, and the IPCC AR5 will acknowledge and talk about this per the draft copies that have been released. Paleoclimate (i.e. Marcott, Mann) is a whole different ball of wax; I think most of that field is absolute poo poo and agenda-driven. And I still don't think we have a good grasp on whether Earth right now is markedly hotter than it was in, say, 1000 AD. The thing that I despise the most is the sea level predictions, and discussions of doomsday sea level rise. For one, there is the fact that if humanity wasn't on this planet, the sea levels would still be rising (the Earth is currently in a series of ice ages and interglacials...the past interglacial had sea levels 20 feet higher than they are today; we can expect far higher sea levels before our current interglacial ends) thus some indeterminate amount of the rise is completely natural. We also have a satellite in orbit that monitors sea levels and reports it quarterly on the research website at University of Colorado. We have yet to see any signs of acceleration in the past 20+ years we have had that satellite in the air, and the sea levels are rising so incredibly slow (1.2 inches per decade) that the doomsday warnings about low lying areas is completely absurd. Without acceleration, it will take 50 years before sea levels rise 6 inches. One final thought: doomsday warnings are reliant upon acceleration, and acceleration is reliant not upon CO2 increase, but rather on high climate sensitivity to those CO2 increases (feedbacks that will amplify the warming). There is not yet any reason whatsoever to believe that climate sensitivities are as high as the models have assumed. I'm a broken record at this point, typing much of the same things over and over in this thread, so apologies if you've read this rant for the umpteenth time.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:That doesn't make you knowledgeable on the subject. Reading (and digesting) the information in a scientific paper is no easy task and it can be extremely easy to miss details. The fact that you claim to have read hundreds of papers on climate science and the IPCC report really doesn't mean anything if you don't have the right background. So I'm not impressed. This also calls into question your supposed authority at being able to confidently say that the paleoclimate field is "poo poo and agenda-driven". I was talking about whether I was trolling, not claiming to be an expert...I was more saying "I am serious about this" and not "wow I am a scholar." And I was speaking about my knowledge relative to average, not relative to experts. My description of the paleo field was probably off, you are right on that. A bit too kind. It's funny that in a field where they impress upon us that the fate of the world is in the balance, they do their damnedest to make sure nobody sees the data. And when they finally relent or are forced to relent, we find a litany of errors ranging from using a proxy upside down (Mann 08) to insufficient sample size (Briffa 00) and failed significance tests (Gergis 2012). All 3 of those papers will be in AR5 in some form or another; Gergis was retracted but will be in there nonetheless.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:Not to mention that you throw around strawman statements such as referring to increasing CO2 as the "harbinger of doom". I mean, what is "doom" in this context? bviously it's not going to be clearly defined because nobody is using that wording in the literature, which is great, because people will read that and envision fire and brimstone, letting you post whatever you want as a counterargument and make it seem reasonable. I don't think it's unfair to say that the film Inconvenient Truth predicted doomsday scenarios in the not so distant future due to GHGs, and sort of set the narrative of the past decade. Granted, I wasn't talking about the general public when I made that statement. But I similarly don't think it's unfair to say that people in the climatology field like Hansen and Mann (just to name two) have blurred the line between science and advocacy, stressing that the fate of our planet is in the balance in the very near future. So "strawman" seems like a bad way to describe this. Doom may be a broad term, but the tone of this thread is definitively doomsdayian. Bizarro Watt posted:See, I read your posts and I just see bizarre debate tactics (a couple more: comparing what was reported in the NYT to what was published in the actual article and then referring to the scientist as talking to the media as a "PR tour") to form a false narrative about climate science in order to obfuscate the fact that you haven't really taken as much from those hundreds of papers you've read as you like to claim to. Obviously PR tour is hyperbole, but...they did issue a press release; they were interviewed by multiple organizations; and I did post a lengthy Youtube interview where one of the authors both gave an interview to the NYT and also misrepresented the results in that interview. So would you say that was an outreach effort on their behalf to promote their paper? I'd say that is accurate. And I'd say it is also accurate that they misrepresented the results, and only clarified their determinations a week after all of the articles had been published. Bizarro Watt posted:You throw around citations as though they actually matter without even linking to the corresponding article so it can actually be discussed as if you just want to give a vacuous impression that you know what you're talking about to the non-scientific individuals reading this thread. Or mentioning the name McIntyre as if blog articles are a legitimate citation (compared to peer-reviewed literature). As far as the papers I mentioned, those two are the bedrocks of the paleo field. Briffa's Yamal dataset and Mann's bristlecone pine (and Tiljander). Briefly, Briffa's dataset contains sample sizes in the single digits in the modern era (among more nuanced issues) and Mann's study contains an upside down proxy (Tiljander) that he has acknowledged but says "does not matter" (nuanced again). Another study that used that upside down proxy issued a corrigenda and removed it from his paper; Mann had no such compunction. The third paper that I mentioned - Gergis 2012 - was recently retracted due to errors in the paper, but will be snuck into the IPCC paleo section via the PAGES2K paper; again the authors have no such compunction to remove retracted proxies. My disdain for the paleo field in climate science is fairly widespread, and I don't think ill-founded. Generally, I don't think anyone who reads McIntyre for what he is could possibly see the villain that he is made out to be. The entire genesis of the blog was his effort to look at Mann's data a decade ago, and Mann told him he didn't have it. He is taken on far more of a role than blogger...he was involved with the IPCC AR4 review process and his findings/work have resulted in papers being withdrawn, corrected, and data being published. I don't want to presume to speak for someone, but the strong impression that I get is that he believes in global warming (and is a 'liberal'), but has strong misgivings about the paleo underpinnings of stating that the current temperatures are unprecedented over the past two millenia. The field routinely deny access to data, fights FOIA requests for data, and seem to have a predetermined outcome in their studies that require 'creative' statistics for the desired results. Without touching on the issues raised in the CRU emails released many years ago, just based on the tone alone, I'm not sure how you can think that the paleo field is a group of warm, helpful scientists. The emails reveal the opposite, at the very least. And that email chain is practically the entire field (CRU + Mann). Space Crabs posted:So if at this point you are breaking out the temperatures since 2003 as evidence and throwing out the whole "the climate has changed before guys" or "X was hotter/bigger/deeper/worse in the ______ Era" talking points it sounds exactly like a troll because those are the most common denialist arguments that receive the most attention and the only two outcomes are either willful ignorance or purposeful trolling. What you have in quotes is seriously misrepresenting what I was posting, but leaving that alone...I don't see how you can handwave away that the temperature rise has been on pause for over a decade. It is readily apparent that the climate models have a strong warm bias thus far:  That is the IPCC's graph, not mine. From the yet to be published AR5. The climate models begin in the year 2000, with data unknown; everything pre-2000 is a hindcast with known data. The divergence from the climate models is immediate and unmistakable. And that graph stops with the year 2011...the year 2012 diverges yet more and 2013 (thus far) has diverged yet more again. I'm not sure how you can think that the topic of climate sensitivity and climate models don't matter. Or that I am trolling by bringing it up. In some ways, it is the only thing that matters; it's easily the most important aspect of the debate. It is the basis of the politics, i.e. any preparations that need to be made or alterations in our way of life. This NYT article was published yesterday about climate sensitivities (namely, them being revised downward): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/science/what-will-a-doubling-of-carbon-dioxide-mean-for-climate.html?_r=1& This Economist article is another must-read from 6 weeks ago: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
TACD posted:I just want to point out that this statement doesn't deserve a serious response. Don't entertain it with one. Pretty ironic, an article by Mann + a blogger. Neither of them have any expertise in the field. Anyway, that certainly isn't a rebuttal in any meaningful sense. They explain that they do not trust the new study. Alright. They also postulate explanations for why current temperatures don't track with models. Certainly plausible, but again not a rebuttal. I mean...just look at the ranges in the climate sensitivities in the graphic that is posted at your link (or even just reference the ranges in AR4). This isn't an area where we have a firm grasp on the true sensitivity of doubling CO2; The Economist acknowledges that and discussed it. As does the NYT.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Here you go honey: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm It's certainly plausible that the ocean is capturing more heat than anticipated, but it raises a pertinent question: if the oceans are capturing more heat, does that mean surface warming won't be as pronounced? There are separate issues in a warming ocean where carbonic acid is increasing, but again I don't see how this is a rebuttal of the debate on climate sensitivities. As far as why they included the surface temperature and not the ocean, it is because humans live on the surface of the Earth and do not live underwater in the oceans.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Just for a little reality check on his disaster porn introduction:quote:With sea levels more than a foot higher than they'd been at the dawn of the century Sea levels have risen by 1.8 inches from 2000 to 2013, or .129 inches per year. The author implies that will increase by a factor of ~5 to .6 inches per year over the next 17 years to reach 12 inches total. It's easier to see the stupidity of this via graph:  I don't think this is even PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE considering how slow these processes are. Which I guess just makes his line in his lone paragraph devoted to the science all the more ironic. quote:Sea-level rise is not a hypothetical disaster. It is a physical fact of life on a warming planet, the basic dynamics of which even a child can understand: Heat melts ice. Since the 1920s, the global average sea level has risen about nine inches, mostly from the thermal expansion of the ocean water. But thanks to our 200-year-long fossil-fuel binge, the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are starting to melt rapidly now, causing the rate of sea-level rise to grow exponentially. The latest research, including an assessment by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, suggests that sea level could rise more than six feet by the end of the century. James Hansen, the godfather of global-warming science, has argued that it could increase as high as 16 feet by then – and Wanless believes that it could continue rising a foot each decade after that. "With six feet of sea-level rise, South Florida is toast," says Tom Gustafson, a former Florida speaker of the House and a climate-change-policy advocate. Even if we cut carbon pollution overnight, it won't save us. Ohio State glaciologist Jason Box has said he believes we already have 70 feet of sea-level rise baked into the system. He basically indicts himself as dumber than a child in this sentence I guess? Also the line of "causing the rate of sea-level rise to grow exponentially" is of course counteracted by the fact that sea levels have grown linearly, not exponentially, for 20+ years now (and maybe even before that, depending how reliable the tide gauge record is). One need simply google Colorado Sea Level and click on the first link to see the data in graph form. Further, we had two papers, in May 2012 and in May 2013, from two separate research teams of glaciologists, that both point out the fact that the 6 feet rises are out of the question by 2100, because the ice sheets cannot physically melt that fast even at the high end of the temperature increase predictions: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6081/576 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12068.html The 16 foot prediction from Hansen is par for the course. Truly the idiot-king of climate science. I guess Hansen's strategy is that when your previous predictions prove to be far too dire compared to reality, just exit the bounds of reality completely and make them even MORE dire next time. Here is Hansen's predictions overlaid against prominent models (made this when his sea level "predictions" "paper" was published): Miami will probably be underwater before the next ice age if the previous interglacial was any indication, but it will be at some far distant future date with an unfathomably advanced population.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I just listened to the This American Life segment where they ask an Exxon scientist whether it's true that 20% of current known reserves will put us over the "everyone's hosed" 2 degrees C warmer on average line established by the U.N., and the answer they get back is "Yes, and with current projections we expect a 5 degree increase by the end of the century." I only have one question: is political violence justified by these circumstances? You piqued my interest and I read the transcript, and it's a wee bit vague: quote:But when it comes to the numbers at the heart of McKibben's argument, the numbers showing that if Exxon and other companies simply sell what is in their reserves, they will drive up the planet's temperature far more than two degrees, I asked Cohen and his PR guy, and the press people at the oil industry lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, several times for anything they might have that would dispute those numbers. And they didn't come up with anything. Finally, Exxon sent me to an industry-funded expert at MIT who told me not only that McKibben's numbers were solid but that in fact, at current rate of emissions, by the end of the century, we'll probably raise the planet's temperature five degrees. I see no reason that Glass would lie, but I also see no reason that an unnamed MIT scientist is giving predictions far, far outside even the IPCC. "Probably 5C" implies >50% chance of a 5C rise in 87 years, presuming a 2000 baseline. AR4 climate models put the range at 1.7-4.4C with a median of 2.8C. 5C is nearly double the median, and much higher than the topline! That's also even above the A1F1 scenario median of 4C. And those are all 110 year models as opposed to 87 year models! You kind of need to assign a name when you have a scientist giving out that alarmist/outside the mainstream of a number. And as we know from data, virtually all of the models are biased warm through 2013, with some of them so far above the observational data that the models are rejected/garbage: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ModelObsComparison_21001.png Zoomed in: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ModelsObsComparison_2020.png So how anyone could look at the past decade of data and think 5C by 2100 is still a legitimate possibility boggles the mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Ronald Nixon posted:http://robertscribbler.wordpress.co...ture-this-week/ The American west makes up much less than 1% of the planet's surface (it's ~1% if you extend that into the Canadian portion of the image). Don't confuse localized weather with global climate. I'm guessing you didn't get up in arms about the extreme cold winter that the US had in some parts of the country during the late winter/early spring. Globally, 2013 looks to be on par or colder than 2012 which was colder than 2011 which was colder than 2010. Data from NASA, as one example. Global temperature has been in relative stasis for about 12 years now; the 30-year trend is ~.15C per decade.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Malgrin posted:This line of reasoning makes me want to stab my brain with a screwdriver. Yeah, global temperatures haven't seen a huge jump in the past 12 years, but they're still so much higher than they've been in the past. Since natural variation and climate cycles (e.g. PDO, AO) have such a large impact on year to year temperatures, very little information can be extracted from 12 years of data. Generally, you want to look at a minimum of 20-30 years of climate data, but once you factor in autocorrelation, you end up with less than half of that in your effective sample size. To get a realistic trend, in most cases, you need 40-50 years of climate data. Don't tell me our climate isn't warming because warming has been slower the past decade. Additionally, saying that 2011 and 2012 are cooler than 2010 is like saying ice isn't cold because space is really cold. 2010 (~tied with 2005) is the HOTTEST year on record. Statistically, any time you reach a high (low) record, it's very likely the next several points in a time series will be lower (higher). 2011 and 2012 were both hot years. You're also ignoring that the oceans are absorbing huge amounts of heat, which has kept our surface temperatures from increasing more, and that trend hasn't really changed. The oceans are also still warming. I said the 30-year trend right in the post, man. Nothing in there was an attempt to be misleading; it was to give perspective. And I think it is completely fair to point out that weather extremes - and they are WEATHER extremes (with the heat being caused by changes in the jet stream) - should not be used to bolster an argument in the absence of other information. If it were part of some global phenomenon like the 1998 ENSO event, then sure, but just isolating singular weather patterns and ignoring trends is disingenuous -- and indistinct from saying "hey Al Gore it's snowing in April." On your second point, you seem to take it for granted that the oceans are absorbing huge amounts of heat -- Trenbeth's "missing" heat, to be specific. There's two reasons you shouldn't take this for granted: (1) the deep ocean research is built upon models, and not direct observations, so these could be (and if you will permit me editorializing, probably are) as wrong as the climate models and (2) it's entirely possible that deep oceans can be getting warmer AND that climate models could be grossly exaggerating temperature rise. There isn't a mutual exclusivity in those two occurrences. In fact, the mere existence of "missing heat" (whether it is in the ocean or nowhere at all) implies yet again that our climate models are severely limited by our lack of knowledge of major variables (with cloud cover, as always, still being an unknown feedback). As to your last point about temperature extremes, I think a much simpler method of quantifying climate change is to look at global climate. What you've linked to are temperature records that cover 1.85% of the globe.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Ronald Nixon posted:Fair enough for yourself, but it's definitely a problem of the system. The way peer-reviewed science came about was a great mechanism for stable conundrums (e.g. the solar system arrangements, gravity, evolution) but for rapidly changing circumstances it is inadequate. The response time is too slow, and by the time you are confident (with the typical meaning) in the findings, they have become obsolete. So we're replacing the danger of acting quickly on bad info with acting slowly on old info. This would not be science; this would be political activism. Already way too prevalent of a problem in the field.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
There are multiple efforts to colonize Mars underway, and they aren't pretend or fairy tales. The man most equipped to get us there (Elon Musk) wants to retire on Mars, and he isn't joking around. I'd say 2040 at the latest for a permanent colony on Mars, and maybe even as soon as 2030. If I had to guess, the Earth will be approximately .4 degrees warmer, and the sea levels will be 3.5 inches higher than today in 2040. Virtually indiscernible changes by the time we become a multi-planet species.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Inglonias posted:This is evidenced by the fact that while there are more and more natural disasters, we're prepared enough that less people are dying as a direct result of them (Source - See the end of the article). This is false. This is the WMO report that your story describes: http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf Go to page 10 of the PDF, and it explains that the data does not demonstrate that there are more natural disasters. Edit: page 19 says it as well. We also know that the IPCC AR5 report will say the exact same thing. Alarmists like to scare people about flooding and hurricanes, etc., but there does not appear to be any link or scientific basis in that conclusion (in fact, hurricane strength is still at or near multi-decade lows). Arkane fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 21:24
|
|