Quote :

"the shittyness of the consequences remains the same."

Quote :

"Tuvalu's complete and utter sinking is staved off a few decades"

Quote :

"the Atlantic coasts get ass-raped earlier than planned."

do you see how all your points are based on what the models predict will happen, and not any kind of facts? and then do you see how the models are constantly changing? how anyone can be so convinced is beyond me...you're not a science teacher, are you?

7/8/2008 2:37:51 PM

can we really know anything, maaaaaannnnn?

7/8/2008 3:10:40 PM

i dont particularly care for your sarcastic remark as another attempt to invalidate my very valid argument

7/8/2008 3:17:55 PM

Your argument is that any prediction of future events we develop is irrelevant because we can't know for 100% sure.

Was I supposed to take that seriously?

7/8/2008 3:22:39 PM

Greenland has been thawed out in the past, nothing unnatural about it happening again.

7/8/2008 3:23:06 PM

^^not irrelevant, but definitely not certain, and not to be viewed as irrefutable fact like many of you always erroneously do

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ^^]

7/8/2008 3:25:35 PM

No one's been arguing that it's an irrefutable fact. Of course it isn't.

Just that it's an undeniable probability.


So we've reached the stage in this thread where you back off from your arguments and claim that all you're really arguing is that there's a level of uncertainty in science and prediction. Awesome.

7/8/2008 3:31:30 PM

Meh, no use in arguing with these people. Might as well just ridicule them as the ideological hacks they are and continue working on finding practical solutions.

7/8/2008 4:25:44 PM

Quote :

"Just that it's an undeniable probability."

undeniable probability? that sounds kind of like an irrefutable fact

^ideological hacks? i guess i'm just an exxon pawn for being skeptical?

two faithful AGW proponents, bringing no arguments at all to the thread, just dismissing anyone who hasn't jumped on the bandwagon

7/8/2008 4:34:36 PM

Well, it seems that the rest of the world (and perhaps now the US) has been taking steps to fight GW through the Kyoto Protocol and the G-8.

We in the US have let ideology triumph over reason, which is why we aren't further along. Right wing hacks won't even let the information out for the people to decide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070801442.html?hpid=topnews

7/8/2008 7:01:35 PM

What does AGW stand for? Al Gore Warming?

7/8/2008 8:19:05 PM

^anthropogenic

Quote :

"it seems that the rest of the world except for China and India (and perhaps now the US)"

7/8/2008 9:11:40 PM

China's GHG emissions have already increased 4 times the proposed cuts in Kyoto since the treaty.

However, I consistently maintain that the United States not entering into the treaty was the single greatest setback to anything being done about the problem that we've seen. China is doing a lot, just no where near enough - they get a smaller percentage of their power from coal today than they did a few years ago. Only problem is, that still means their coal use is growing at an astounding rate.

By now, China emits more GHG than the US itself. It's their fault, but it's our fault as well. There's not much meaning in us reducing carbon emissions if that means we make the developing world do our manufacturing instead.

7/8/2008 10:32:03 PM

The Kyoto Protocol is a joke. Almost all countries that have agreed to it are failing miserably at meeting their end of the agreement, and even if every country had originally signed up for it at best it would have lowered the global temperature (according to best estimates) less than a tenth of one degree Celsius.

7/9/2008 1:05:36 AM

Signatories:



And you are somehow complaining that the people who signed it aren't doing what they said in the non-binding treaty? By the way, some of them are. Many in fact.

Opposing world government is right on, we don't want that. But can you possibly, for a second, wrap your American mind around the idea of being a responsible world citizen? Now, ask yourself - WHY is it a joke?

We made it a joke.

7/9/2008 9:52:05 AM

Why would we want to be responsible world citizens when we can just bomb people who disagree with us? It's way easier that way.

7/9/2008 11:35:19 AM

^^I was pointing out its ineffectiveness, not complaining about countries not following it. And its a joke b/c even if WE AGREED TO IT it would make such a small difference in the global temperature that it wouldn't be worth the economic cost.

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM. Reason : k]

7/9/2008 12:10:59 PM

oh, so you mean like going back to 1990 emission levels would make little difference. That's perfectly true.

Anyway the only solution opportunity I see coming up soon is

peak oil + nuclear power = problem solved - the parts we already fucked up

Honestly, the truth of the matter is that there's only so much Carbon in the ground for us to burn. The real way to fight climate change is driving technology selection for the future to burn a smaller net amount of coal/nat gas/oil which are going to run out anyway. Not guilt tripping your neighbor for not turning out their night light.

7/9/2008 1:57:37 PM

Agreed on that last part.

What this nation needs to get on the right foot is the following:

-more nuclear power, in a big way
-all gov't fleet cars hybrid
-expansion of the rail system, to get away from most heavy shipping being via trucks.

None of these would even require huge investments in any new technology.

7/9/2008 2:04:15 PM

Yeah, well some car makers are actually taking logical actions for the peak of oil

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/603/mercedes-to-cut-petroleum-out-of-lineup-by-2015.html

Too bad none of them are in this nation
And shoot, we should make most of the government fleet electric. It's a waste to do hybrids when
a) they're not plug in and
b) they're not being driven more than 60 miles a day anyway

The government needs to lead the way by example. bad. I blame soooo many of our problems on them.

7/9/2008 2:24:26 PM

Yes electric is good, if short range is all thats needed I definitely agree with you.

7/9/2008 3:07:17 PM

Quote :

"all gov't fleet cars hybrid"

I agree... have you seen how many SUV's NCSU owns?

7/9/2008 3:32:38 PM

It all depends on the application. But at least the government has the ability to do an organization wide analysis of what is used for what, how heavily, and in what intervals and then optimize the cost of a solution.

You would think.

In terms of workhorse vehicles, buses, trash collectors, etc., these will probably be most effectively converted to Natural Gas. Even if our website touts hybrid school buses as the pride of our research

http://ncsu.edu/featured-stories/innovation-discovery/june-2008/hybrid-bus/index.php

That doesn't mean it makes the most sense out of the available options.

7/9/2008 3:34:40 PM

^^one reason some people didn't even consider switching to a hybrid a few years back was because they all looked like egg shaped turds. Now you can get a hybrid Civic or Suburban or basically a "normal" looking car thats hybrid...its progress

7/9/2008 3:43:09 PM

7/9/2008 5:11:12 PM

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/a-different-climate-change-apocalypse-than-the-one-you-were-envisioning/

Quote :

"Climate change may — or may not — be a central issue for the world economy."

Quote :

"This would be Darwinism on the most epic scale imaginable — but instead of the finch with the shorter beak becoming extinct, it’ll be the poorest millions, or perhaps billions."

7/10/2008 11:41:56 AM

Quote :

"The latter term will be over 1 degree C. That is a fact..."

A fact? You have a time machine? You have worked out the exact mechanisms of our climate? it is conjecture, pure and simple, and it is conjecture based on the intentional misuse of statistics.

7/11/2008 8:39:25 PM

RAWR RAWR RAWR

HOCKEY STICK GRAPH

RAWR RAWR RAWR

7/11/2008 10:34:45 PM

that is pretty much the argument put forth by the fear-mongerers, you know

7/11/2008 10:52:04 PM

No, that is the argument put forth by you. You provide less information than anyone else in this thread.

"You're wrong because the statistical data that allowed for that analysis to be made is false. No I don't have any proof of this, it is what the oil companies and President Bush Cheney told me."

7/11/2008 10:54:50 PM

Quote :

"A fact? You have a time machine? You have worked out the exact mechanisms of our climate? it is conjecture, pure and simple, and it is conjecture based on the intentional misuse of statistics."

Seeing as how you were born yesterday, let's start from square one.

Greenhouse effect. Do you believe this?

Atoms, bond lengths, and photon scattering. Do these exist in your world of sharp, witty, and intelligent skepticism?

Now, measures of energy over area and blackbody radiation. Do balance of energy equations apply in your mind?

If so, then we should expect temperatures to rise over 1 degree C for 700 extra ppm of CO2. Unless at the same time Killface just happens to ignite the annihilatrix, counteracting the effect.

You are a God damn tool.

7/12/2008 12:31:55 AM

you know if all those models were accurate, the temperature would be rising every single year...how come it isn't? can you explain that one?

why do you put so much faith into a model and what will happen in 50 years when the model isn't even accurately predicting whats happening right now?

7/12/2008 3:11:40 PM

That's not true at all.

7/12/2008 8:01:32 PM

BUT YOU CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE YOU DIRTY LIBERALS!

7/12/2008 9:36:39 PM

Quote :

"You're wrong because the statistical data that allowed for that analysis to be made is false. No I don't have any proof of this, it is what the oil companies and President Bush Cheney told me."

Actually, genius, it was proven that this was a misapplication of statistics. By statisticians. Feel free to look at the links I provided earlier. But you won't.

Quote :

"If so, then we should expect temperatures to rise over 1 degree C for 700 extra ppm of CO2."

BASED.

ON.

WHAT.

Simple greenhouse effect does NOT say this. The other things you mention DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. Rather, the "reconstructions" are what you are basing this on. And those "reconstructions" are pure chicanery. THAT is my point.

7/13/2008 9:43:33 PM

Quote :

"Simple greenhouse effect does NOT say this."

Glad we got here.

It does.

7/13/2008 9:45:17 PM

really. do explain to me how the simply greenhouse effect says that you get 1C warming for every "extra" 700ppm of CO2. Please. explain that. Explain how the tendency of CO2 to help the earth retain heat by its mere existence, which is what the greenhouse effect says, btw, can help you come up with a concrete 1C for every 700ppm. Please. explain that.

Or, since you seem so eager to use your calculator, do this for me. Double the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom. Tell me what kind of warming we should thus expect for every 700ppm, in this hypothetical world. Bust out your calculator. It should only take you a couple minutes, since you have all the equations for our climate in there. I'll wait.

7/13/2008 10:08:36 PM

Before that, I want to point out something else. You said "Simple greenhouse effect", I took this to mean that you on the same page for radiative forcing. But later, I "have all the equations for climate" in there.

We've discussed the climate factors. Water vapor and ice melting are two of the largest feedbacks as far as I understand. There are positive and negative feedbacks, water vapor in particular is in dispute. But we can't seem to have a conversation about the original driving factor.

Feedback and the Earth's natural temperature behavior are things we don't understand very well at all. BUT...

What 700 ppm means in terms of "Simple greenhouse effect" is clear. Don't start backing off into this other stuff. And it is not for EVERY 700ppm, I never said that. It is specifically for 250ppm to 950ppm of CO2, with the existing sunlight spectra and current GHGs already up there.

7/13/2008 10:41:00 PM

so, then, where do you get this 250ppm to 900ppm figure, then? On what are you basing this?

7/13/2008 10:45:43 PM

Oh, I assure you, that the increase in CO2 levels is perfectly attributable.

If you measure the CO2 concentration over the last few decades, you'll notice it's changed from a starting value of about 250 ppm to about 380 ppm now. If you multiply that difference by the volume of the atmosphere, you get around 500 billion tons of CO2 change. If you take EIA data for human CO2 emissions, add up over all the years we have data for, you get 500 billion some tons of CO2.

It's like having a glass of water, dropping green die into it, and coming back later and saying "I wonder why that water's green". Causation is pretty clear.



Notice how in this IPCC graph, there is only one line. That is because radiative forcing is proportional to CO2 concentration. CO2 concentration change also just happens to be 100% completely absolutely proportional in a 1 to 1 ratio to the amount of CO2 human activities release.

7/13/2008 11:43:14 PM

I don't know man, that graph sure does resemble a hockey stick...

7/14/2008 12:15:06 AM

so, once again, CO2 is the only variable in our climate, I take it...

And, again, on what you basing the +1C change in temperature... I wasn't asking you to come up with a source for your estimates of CO2 in the atmosphere, silly. I'm asking for on what you base the temperature increase. Pointing to your radiative forcing graph is not sufficient, because that, too, must be based on something. And, more than likely it is based on the same thing as your +1C estimate.

Here's a hint: your +1C estimate should be based on something that DOESN'T have years in the graph.

7/15/2008 6:34:05 PM

I wasn't showing you the graph to show the increasing CO2 content. I was showing it so you could get this concept of how a ppm change translates directly into a temperature change.

Quote :

"I can show you that 1.46 W/m2 forcing --> 0.28 deg C first level temperature increase. That graph, btw, is using about a 100 ppm increase in CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases predictions going up to 2100 give increases to around 740 ppm assuming no action is taken. That's using historical carbon emission trends. With the rate at which China, India, and the like are developing, I don't think they overestimated, and we're not hitting peak coal either. For 740 ppm, if you use the IPCC most simple first order approximation, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm You get 5.2 W/m2 --> 1.0 deg C."

okay...

Quote :

"radiative forcing graph is not sufficient, because that, too, must be based on something"

I take this to mean you understand that a W/m2 translates directly to a degrees C. This is from the energy balance of the Earth, blackbody radiation, tell me if you don't agree with that.

change in ppm -> W/m2 -> degrees C

Meaning that you're asking about the first arrow there, because you have yet to attack the fact that we're changing the ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and I just addressed the second arrow.

In order to relate this you need
*The incoming spectra from the sun
*The outgoing spectra from the Earth
*The absorption spectra of the entire atmosphere and of CO2 itself

If you want to get specific, this would vary with latitude, as the atmosphere itself changes in composition. The incoming spectra is high energy, the outgoing spectra is low energy. CO2 absorbs more of the outgoing spectra than the incoming spectra.

Additional CO2 is not additive to the existing spectra, but it is simple attenuation. The rest involves integrating this stuff. It's not PY 205 stuff to do that, but only in matter of complexity, NOT CONCEPT. This point is that we have all of this stuff, and I don't mean estimates. Doubling the Bohr radius of Hydrogen seems pretty well irrelevant. We can (and have) accurately measured that absorption spectra of CO2. I can post more images of these things, but the answer to [this part] of your question is:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2008 8:46:54 PM

I don't know if the Bohr radius would have an effect at all. I just threw that out there because you were calculator happy, suggesting that you could actually calculate things down to that minute of a level (which, btw, can't be done at this point, not that it probably makes a difference).

So then, as you describe your process of analyzing the CO2 forcing, it, again, sounds as if you are implying that CO2 is the sole factor in our climate. Makes perfect sense to me... I'm glad to see that we are on the same page now.

7/15/2008 8:59:21 PM

[removed]

even then, the IPCC's definition of "radiative forcing" is almost ludicrous, stating that it is calculated as if nothing else in the environment changed. I think that is an absurd notion to try and use to explain anything related to our climate.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 9:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2008 9:46:31 PM

It's fine if there are other factors.

The discussion up until now dealt with the claim that industrialization-related CO2 emissions will increase the temperature of the Earth by some value above what said calculation yields for any given CO2 increase. This value is at the present something like 1/4 a degree C, but could surpass 1 degree C given continued emission rates, all of this being a direct radiative forcing value, which is widely seen by the scientific community as a lower limit, given that feedback factors are typically positive instead of negative, reference: The North Pole.

Provided you see some consequence in temperature rise (I don't see why you wouldn't), we've built an argument that establishes that increased CO2 will have fairly dramatic, or at least notable consequences. What are the other factors do you consider to be of consequence and why?

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 9:50 PM. Reason : all for ^^]

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 9:51 PM. Reason : but applies a little to second paragraph ^]

7/15/2008 9:48:58 PM

don;t put words into my mouth. i have not said that an increase in CO2 concentrations would lead to even notable changes. in fact, the more I look at it, the more it appears that even that statement may be in doubt, given the IPCC's definition of forcing.

7/15/2008 9:54:04 PM

Radiative forcing is pretty a quantitative measure of the Greenhouse effect.

I have my questions about it too, but they all result in near inconsequentially. For instance, to get the new equilibrium temperature of the Earth, you find the temperature for which the blackbody radiation would equal the wattage coming in. But when you do that, the spectrum going up from the Earth also changes to higher energy, meaning that different parts of the absorption spectra then have slightly different effectiveness.

But at the same time, the intensity of no wavelength decreases as the temperature of an object increases, meaning this would affect how the 'push back' works, but doesn't change that it increases, and changes very little how it increases.

Also, I'm really only interested in some representitive spot on the Earth here, but there is a wide variety of temperatures out there (clearly). In other words, I appreciate how scientists create complicated models, but the driving force should be visible to use all, even quantitatively.

7/15/2008 10:03:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo

7/19/2008 7:53:17 AM

Who the fuck are you rolling your eyes at?

7/19/2008 11:54:20 AM