Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,826
#1,826
BartW said:
Hansen made his prediction in 1988. The sea level rise and arctic ice decline plots were model predictions as well. The Pinatubo plot is just to show Hansen's model's consistency. Models should be (and are) backcasted to check for consistency with historical data.

Sandvol, what evidence would convince you?
Click to expand...

The sea level has been rising for 18,000 years.
 
#1,827
#1,827
In answer to your question-time. Berkley Earth keeps putting out some good stuff. Their natural log fit of CO2 to the temperature record looks pretty convincing. I'd like to see their work for about 10 more years and see what else they come up with. They only started this about a year or two ago. And, I think this has to be approached from a practical manner like Muller espouses and not unilateral like the environmental whacko camp. Growing government is not the answer. I mean CO2 has been a lot higher in the past and it wasn't caused by us and we're still here. I think natural changes in the climate can dwarf anything we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,828
#1,828
Sandvol said:
The sea level has been rising for 18,000 years.
Click to expand...

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png


Sea level rose after the last glacial max but it was constant from atleast 1300 until it began accelerating in the late 19th century. How much is sea level rising?

Sea-Level-1.gif


Sea-Level-2.gif


Notice the trend has a positive trend. That means it's accelerating. Figures are from Church et al. 2008. For more comprehensive and up-to-date figures check out the sea level section of AR5.
 
#1,830
#1,830
Sandvol said:
In answer to your question-time. Berkley Earth keeps putting out some good stuff. Their natural log fit of CO2 to the temperature record looks pretty convincing. I'd like to see their work for about 10 more years and see what else they come up with. They only started this about a year or two ago. And, I think this has to be approached from a practical manner like Muller espouses and not unilateral like the environmental whacko camp. Growing government is not the answer. I mean CO2 has been a lot higher in the past and it wasn't caused by us and we're still here. I think natural changes in the climate can dwarf anything we do.
Click to expand...

Waiting 10 more years wouldn't do much harm. That's reasonable. I'm worried though that people will keep dragging this out until the price of fossil fuels goes way up. The clock is ticking.
 
#1,831
#1,831
BartW said:
Waiting 10 more years wouldn't do much harm. That's reasonable. I'm worried though that people will keep dragging this out until the price of fossil fuels goes way up. The clock is ticking.
Click to expand...

What would be your solution? The per capita argument about China doesn't cut it. They have about 800 million people who live in grass huts. If you take the 400 million Chinese who live in the modern world they are putting out a lot more CO2 per capita than we are.
 
#1,832
#1,832
And, I'd like to see more definitive proof than just inference that the CO2 is man made. You can't look at a CO2 molecule and say that's from man and that one's natural. How do we know there isn't some natural cause we don't understand?
 
Last edited:
#1,833
#1,833
Sandvol said:
And, I like to see more definitive proof than inference that the CO2 is man made. You can't look at a CO2 molecule and say that's from man and that one's natural. How do we know there isn't some natural cause we don't understand?
Click to expand...

Actually we can tell which CO2 molecules are 'natural' and which are 'man-made'. Atmospheric CO2 has different isotope ratios than that found in plants/fossil fuels. The isotope evidence is pretty damning:

co2_vs_emissions.gif


Anthropogenic CO2

Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research

In regards to China, their per capita emissions are 1/4 of ours so the math's not quite right, but point taken. It's an intricate global political challenge. I agree we should be tougher on China, but that's a lot to expect considering AGW is pretty low on our list of priorities at home. The winds of change are blowing in China though. They are becoming more environmentally aware. China has felt the effects of climate change more than most places. Some pretty extreme and long-term droughts. I think China will come around
 
Last edited:
#1,835
#1,835
MG1968 said:
Report: Farmers’ Almanac more accurate than government climate scientists | The Daily Caller

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming - Businessweek

I think I'll put my trust in the Farmers' Almanac from now on.
Click to expand...

Cute. Farmers' almanac is as accurate as astrology. Some bold predictions like "a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey".

True NOAA didn't forecast a polar vortex. But let's not go confusing weather with climate :) If you followed Velo's link a few posts up you'd see January was still pretty hot globally.

Your second story actually links a really good post on Easterbrook's blog about the difference between weather and climate. Specifically about the role of chaos in both. PKT maybe this will explain it to you better:

Initial value vs. boundary value problems
 
#1,836
#1,836
Climate Change Brings More Crime | LA Times

Between 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft, the study published this week in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management says.
Click to expand...
 
#1,840
#1,840
FLVOL_79 said:
Got a great start on my base tan yesterday. Thank you ALGORE!
Click to expand...

lol. i know you are joking, but i really think one of the most annoying things about the climate change discussion is that if a scientist had presented this information instead of al gore, that there would be no debate and people would just support that we cut back on resources etc. but since it was a politician, everyone has to disagree just because. just a shame that political connotations are causing everyone to doubt science's best efforts for spite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,841
#1,841
zreeves said:
lol. i know you are joking, but i really think one of the most annoying things about the climate change discussion is that if a scientist had presented this information instead of al gore, that there would be no debate and people would just support that we cut back on resources etc. but since it was a politician, everyone has to disagree just because. just a shame that political connotations are causing everyone to doubt science's best efforts for spite.
Click to expand...

Also, when I was a kid the chicken little mantra was global cooling and the coming ice age. Changing the scare tactic causes doubt.
 
#1,844
#1,844
zreeves said:
lol. i know you are joking, but i really think one of the most annoying things about the climate change discussion is that if a scientist had presented this information instead of al gore, that there would be no debate and people would just support that we cut back on resources etc. but since it was a politician, everyone has to disagree just because. just a shame that political connotations are causing everyone to doubt science's best efforts for spite.
Click to expand...


You still are in school.
 
#1,846
#1,846
Hey Bart, Mongo take all your carbon producing devices now. That way Bart have no guilt when climate apocalypse comes. Mongo love Bart.
 
#1,850
#1,850
orangeslice13 said:
The mayans were wrong. The Hopi were wrong. Nostradamus was wrong. Edgar Cayce was wrong. One of these days somebody is going to be right.
Click to expand...

It's Bart. He will be right. None of those other hyenas had charts, graphs, quotes, computers, and such
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top