What ignorance? Is understanding sample size now ignorance?

I've never swayed from my opinion that I formed roughly 10-15 years ago that there is indeed a global average temperature increase over the last century or so, but I questioned the causation of that increase, as being either definitely anthropogenic or potentially a result of natural fluctuations and cycles, or perhaps a combination.

But is this just NASA going against the consensus to appease Exxon? Or is it possible that their satellite data about overall Antarctica ice mass loss is accurate?

[Edited on November 2, 2015 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2015 10:53:29 PM

Quote :

"What ignorance? Is understanding sample size now ignorance?"

yes

[Edited on November 2, 2015 at 11:02 PM. Reason : edit]

11/2/2015 10:55:52 PM

Sounds like you're mad that the planet isn't on quite the impending doom course that you were expecting? I guess politics > humanity or something.


[Edited on November 2, 2015 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2015 10:59:56 PM

Quote :

"btw, i'm a alarmist denier agnostic"

11/2/2015 11:03:55 PM

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think the 100 year sample size of increased temperatures in a 4 and a half billion year old planet is somehow super accurate, unless you want to just be cute because NASA's new study doesn't fit your bill? I'm just not one to ignorantly perpetuate anything, just pointing out when a supposed consensus gets wrecked. It's almost like scientists aren't infallible? That consensuses can change?

Maybe I just feel good when chicken little alarmists can get some sleep at night for a change?

[Edited on November 2, 2015 at 11:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2015 11:07:12 PM

Not sure where the 100 year thing is coming from. There is hundreds of thousands of years of data. There are also several types of independent evidence that not only agree with each other, but all point towards anthropogenic warming beyond that of natural cycles. Increased snowfall in Antarctica really has nothing to do with that.

11/2/2015 11:20:20 PM

The approximately 100 year thing is from modern, semi-accurate recording data. While some would disagree that even the actual data recorded 100 years ago is as accurate as it could be. The hundreds of thousands of years of data are based on soil cores and CO2 concentrations based on that. But hundreds of thousands of years are still a drop in the bucket in a multi-billion year old planet. But I guess you too would rather think he's right than acknowledge that some humans don't completely understand how a multi-billion year old planet works.

I guess if you're at a party at 11:59PM you have a great understanding on what's happened the previous 23 hours and 59 minutes...

[Edited on November 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2015 11:24:09 PM

Just because we don't completely understand something, doesn't mean you can disregard all of the evidence. Thats not how science works.

An overwhelming percentage of the evidence suggests anthropogenic warming is taking place. Of course natural warming has taken place at a much bigger magnitude at different times in our planets history but the condition of the planet billions of years ago is irrelevant when talking about what is happening right now and in the previous as well as next 100 years.

11/2/2015 11:54:56 PM

lol at thinking what happens during the vast majority of the planet's existence is "irrelevant" when we look at a tiny, tiny sample size

11/2/2015 11:57:31 PM

I wonder why TT10 HATES the planet

11/3/2015 1:23:50 AM

So you made your mind up 10 years ago that we can't possibly know what is causing Climate change, totally dismissing 10 years of good science and technology improvements. Then NASA produces a single study that may conflict (it may not) and now you feel your dismissal of the entirety of the literature is justified.....because of a single study.

And others are right, we don't care so much about the climate of the Earth a million years ago, really just the time period humans have been able to start farming and build civilization, so like 10,000 yrs or so. Of which we have a pretty decent Paleo record of what the climate was like. And it's not so much that our current temperatures are that unprecedented in the Holocene ( although we may be headed to that place in the future) it's that the RATE of change in temperature has been unlike anything we've seen in the near past.

And this NASA study is only studying ice growth on top of Antarctica. I posted a page or two ago about several studies that were hoping to map around the periphery it's ice sheets, where the ice meets the water, as they had found massive ice caves where the ocean is basically hollowing out the ice from the bottom, this is what had scientist in a tizzy because it meant the possibility of an acceleration in calving. NASA satellites may not have been able to pick those up, so I'll have to do some reading I guess.

11/3/2015 6:51:26 AM

Quote :

"An overwhelming percentage of the evidence suggests anthropogenic warming is taking place. Of course natural warming has taken place at a much bigger magnitude at different times in our planets history but the condition of the planet billions of years ago is irrelevant when talking about what is happening right now and in the previous as well as next 100 years."

Ignoring the fact that even today's most accurate temperature measuring systems (for the global) are still hugely reliant on estimates and averages for large portions of the planet and have margins of error close to or equal to observed warming...

Nobody with half a brain disputes that the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is (has) leading (lead) to a 2°C warming of the planet. But most people that have more than half a brain should realize there is little to no evidence that anyone should be concerned with positive feedbacks leading to even greater warming. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent and 25+ yrs (was the IPCC founded in 1990?) of time all you've got there are theories and wildly inaccurate computer models.

And all these years later and billions spent most people, globally, still aren't very concerned and/or don't believe the alarmist message. Must be very frustrating for all you believers.

In the end it doesn't really matter either way. Solar and other renewables will never be able to support the full energy needs of this planet (even at today's demand). Nuclear energy is the only real long term solution, and to think otherwise is folly.

11/3/2015 8:40:47 AM

Quote :

"But most people that have more than half a brain should realize there is little to no evidence that anyone should be concerned with positive feedbacks leading to even greater warming."

Not only is there evidence that we should be concerned about, but we have knowledge of the actual mechanisms as well as data from all disciplines in agreement that it is happening now.

We know that CO2 increases the temperature, have data that shows this correlation, and can test the mechanics of the greenhouse effect in a lab. We also know that CO2 is released when ice melts. we know ice is melting so of course greater CO2 concentrations will lead to greater warming.

We know sea level is rising.

We know oceans are becoming warmer and more acidic.


We know that the rate of species loss is very high right now.

11/3/2015 10:25:27 AM

Ironically Oregon, which has the most vocal militant climate changes activists, is on the winning side of climate change from a human livability stand-point.

11/3/2015 1:48:46 PM

That "how does it affect me directly" mentality is the main problem though. Its only ironic when you use that mentality.

11/3/2015 3:02:24 PM

Terd, I'm not attempting to dismiss any of the science in the last 10 years, the reason for my refusal to buy into the "humans are definitely causing it" or "humans are definitely not causing it" theories are lack of data. The billions of years of climate that we don't know about most certainly is relevant and trying to understand a system that old based on a relatively tiny set of data just isn't going to yield a definitive answer. For all we know, humans could most definitely be causing the recent warming, or there could be natural warming and cooling fluctuations every 500 million years that we don't have the data on.

11/3/2015 3:51:08 PM

I just shot a random guy in the head and he died but he very well could have died of natural causes, cancer, or several other possible conditions right as I shot him in the head. People die all the time and we simply don't have enough data on his prior health to know for sure the bullet going through his head is what killed him. This guy lived for 70 years and I only knew him for a few seconds before firing the shot.

11/3/2015 6:35:37 PM

At least he won't be destroying the planet with any more of his toxic CO2

11/3/2015 7:22:32 PM

You got that one Straight from Limbaugh.

11/3/2015 7:52:14 PM

yep, you nailed it

[Edited on November 3, 2015 at 7:57 PM. Reason : #1 Rush fan here]

11/3/2015 7:57:20 PM

Quote :

"For all we know, humans could most definitely be causing the recent warming, or there could be natural warming and cooling fluctuations every 500 million years that we don't have the data on."

Unless you know of some mechanism (other than God is just fucking with us) that could be causing warming, that hasn't already been explored, tested, and beat to death, then I'll continue to rely on the current body of the scientific literature and the well researched and supported greenhouse gas mechanism of warming, which is pretty damning when taken in its totality.

And this leads to the obvious question - how much data would it take to actually convince you that our current warming trend is human caused and detrimental? Would I need billions of years of measured temperature data? If that's the case then I'll stop now since there is no hope of convincing you.

11/3/2015 8:11:25 PM

I'm not disputing the greenhouse effect. I just don't know how anyone can be so certain of the cause of recent warming when there are some pretty wild natural fluctuations in the Earth's temperature when you go back a good ways.



Humans obviously didn't contribute to large global temperature spikes 400,000 years ago or 130,000 years ago (approximately). Yet we think we're smart enough to understand all the intricacies of something as complex as our planet? I'm not looking for a definitive answer, because I don't think we're capable of reaching it.

[Edited on November 3, 2015 at 8:31 PM. Reason : large picture]

11/3/2015 8:28:44 PM

Its not that complicated. Middle school science. Continents move, ice melts, carbon is release, temperatures increase until continents move polar and glaciers form, trapping co2 again. Humans dump extra co2 into that atmosphere that would otherwise be trapped deep underground for millions of years.

11/3/2015 8:37:30 PM

Jesus would never allow global warming

11/3/2015 9:45:37 PM

^^But you can't just throw your hands in the air, after looking at the graph, and say, "Wow, temperature varies!!11!!"

First, EPICA and similar ice cores are some of the best evidence we have of the relationship between CO2 and Temperature. We can measure ancient air pockets for CO2 concentrations and then determine temperature from isotopes locked in the ice (I don't actually understand that part of it all) These cores tell us that temperature has tracked CO2 concentrations pretty well.

Second, those huge fluctuations in temperature are due mostly to Milankovitch cycles, ie where the earth is orbiting and at what angle in relation to the sun. We've got a decent handle on these and can account for them, especially in the present where we can actually physically measure many parts of this forcing. They suggest we should be in a cooling period set to last for like 1,000 years (or some long period of time). Instead we've seen the opposite.

Thirdly, the zero year for EPICA temperature records is 1950, so you aren't even seeing present day warming on that graph

11/3/2015 9:49:55 PM

Quote :

"We can measure ancient air pockets for CO2 concentrations and then determine temperature from isotopes locked in the ice (I don't actually understand that part of it all) "

Water with oxygen 16 evaporates more easily so we can use the ratio of water 20 to water 18 to determine relative water temperature since water with O-16 ends up being the precipitation stored in glaciers.

11/4/2015 8:41:15 AM

TIL that The E Man doesn't understand how the popular theory of anthropogenic climate change functions. Just adding lots of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't going to lead to anything super bad or noteworthy. Without positive feedbacks it's nothing but a roughly 2°C warming. Your above post replying to me verifies this.

If I'm mistaken please correct me.

Quote :

"We know sea level is rising."

Sea level has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. It's nothing new, and the rate of rise is roughly the same as it's always been, 2-3 mm/year.

Quote :

"We know oceans are becoming warmer and more acidic."

The oceans are actually slightly basic. It would take a very very long time for them to become acidic, technically speaking. There isn't much evidence to suggest any marine wildlife is being harmed by this either. Unlike the threat from, for instance, sun screen lotion.

Quote :

"We know that the rate of species loss is very high right now"

The current "extinction" hardly has much to do with AGW. It started in the 1600s and is largely a function of excessive hunting, deforestation, invasion of alien species and pollution. It certainly is mankind's fault, but AGW? No.


Terd, the geologic record shows that CO2's relationship with temperature is one of lagging behind. Which makes sense given that a warmer ocean can hold less CO2 per volume. A temperature increase causes a CO2 increase, not the other way around.

[Edited on November 4, 2015 at 4:17 PM. Reason : k]

11/4/2015 4:05:32 PM

Not sure what you precisely mean by geologic record, but the EPICA ice cores (which is what I was talking about earlier) indicate that temperature and CO2 are nearly synchronous, with temperature possibly lagging CO2 by as maximum of 200 years:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
It was originally thought that the ice core data showed that temperature changes proceeded CO2 concentrations, but that was later revised after scientist investigated how air pockets penetrate ice during the freezing process. Air (and its CO2 content) trapped at a certain depth is typically much younger than the ice around it, they adjusted their findings and found the above.

11/4/2015 7:42:44 PM

Quote :

"The oceans are actually slightly basic. It would take a very very long time for them to become acidic, technically speaking. There isn't much evidence to suggest any marine wildlife is being harmed by this either. Unlike the threat from, for instance, sun screen lotion."

pH is a scale. "More acidic" simply means decreasing pH. This is happening and can be measured. Its undeniable. Not only is there evidence that marine life such as coral are being harmed by this, we know the actual mechanism and can recreate it in labs.
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/oa/description/oaps_intro_oa.php

Quote :

"A temperature increase causes a CO2 increase, not the other way around."

Correlation does not mean causation, even if there is a lag. In this case, there is causation but its not simply because of the graphs having the same shape. We know both cause each other and we know the mechanisms behind it. It seems like you are denying the greenhouse effect? Not only does CO2 trap infrared radiation, increasing temperature, but the increase in temperature, melts ice, releasing more CO2, furhter increasing temperature. This is one of the feedbacks you mentioned. Warmer oceans expand to melt more ice, but also hold less CO2. Sea ice melts more rapidly in warmer water, releasing more CO2, adding to the increase in temperature.

Open ocean absorbs sunlight while ice reflects much of the sunlight back into space. As more ice melts, less radiation is reflected back into space and more is absorbed into the ocean. All of these things increase the other. Thats the positive feedback.

11/4/2015 10:04:55 PM

TKE-Teg must be partnering with the Koch Brothers.

Even ExXon and BofA two biggest American players within the two most conservative industries have recognized that artificial climate change is an issue.

11/5/2015 4:04:17 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/03/reagan_and_bush_memos_on_climate_change_show_republican_engagement.html






[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2015 11:26:46 AM

meaningless deal is meaningless?

12/12/2015 5:02:15 PM

Yeah, looks like it was another UN circle jerk feel good summit.

12/14/2015 10:54:49 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/

Will be interesting to see if sea ice extent trend continues through the summer. Between that, El Niño, swirly jet stream, etc, it'll be interesting. Perhaps a small glimpse into our warmer future?

2/18/2016 2:25:29 PM

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-march-global-2016

11 straight months of setting record global monthly temperatures. March 2016 beat out February 2016 as the greatest anomaly from the record.





I predict lots of swamp ass this summer if these trends continue

4/19/2016 7:45:25 PM

Quote :

"Humans obviously didn't contribute to large global temperature spikes 400,000 years ago or 130,000 years ago (approximately). Yet we think we're smart enough to understand all the intricacies of something as complex as our planet? I'm not looking for a definitive answer, because I don't think we're capable of reaching it. "

I would be happy if the weather channel can accurately predict the rain this weekend.

And what kind of effect will climate change have on fishing at the coast?

4/19/2016 9:14:14 PM

BREAKING NEWS: Bobby Lutz has returned to Scott Clark Toyota.

4/20/2016 12:59:35 AM

Another step complete for the ratification of the Paris Agreement.

A long time coming, but progress is progress.

4/22/2016 12:01:09 PM

I'm frankly astonished to see this much climate change denial on a board filled with people who allegedly went to college. I don't know why I'm astonished, given some of the other things people on here say, but I am.

Perhaps it would be a good time to look at this from a different perspective. Global warming is sort of like, I dunno, gay marriage. Whether you believe gay marriage is good or bad, it was clearly inevitable for some time in the run-up to the Supreme Court decision, and it is just as clearly now here for good. So a good number of folks who were otherwise opposed to it have thrown up their hands and moved on to other issues. The handful of people still going on about it are laughingstocks -- as are those groups who did not see the writing on the wall, like North Carolinians, who passed that imbecile amendment one just in time for it to get nullified by the Supreme Court.

So it is with global warming. You don't believe in it, fine. I think you're wrong, but fine. Clearly the momentum is against you, both in the US and the rest of the world. The camp that believe in athropogenic global warming has the upper hand and their position will only get stronger as bigger and worse hurricanes batter our coasts and countries like Kiribati sink completely under the water. And whether you're factually right or wrong (although, again, you're wrong), you will go down as being on the wrong side of history.

Now that's fine for you as individuals but it's bad for companies, states, and governments. If we act as though global warming is a real threat it will allow us to get ahead in the technologies that will be critical as the world becomes more concerned with global warming. If we get out ahead of the "perceived" problem, we'll be better off economically and politically.

---

Another reason I never quite get the "global warming is fake" crowd is that I don't understand what alternative they're proposing, or why anybody would be opposed to the practical measures entailed in curbing carbon emissions. Even if you don't think coal fired power plants are making the world warmer, surely you don't think that billowing clouds of coal smoke are good? Or more yet, that the effects of coal mining are desirable? Even if you think auto emissions have zero impact on the weather, you're surely not in favor of inhaling exhaust or having to suck Saudi Arabia's dick all the time?

What exactly is it that you're opposed to people doing, other than "being democrats?"

4/22/2016 12:34:29 PM

Yeah man, those hurricanes have been so bad...

It's pretty insulting that you question how college educated people don't believe in AGW. Especially interesting when there are plenty of incredibly smart people, scientists, professors, that don't believe in it.

If you so greatly believe that AGW is an issue, what do you have to say about what countries and the UN are doing about it? Which is nothing but lip service. The COP21 agreement will do nothing, even assuming every country is held to their agreement. All the governments aren't interested in actually preventing AGW, which is pretty obvious by all the weak measures continually proposed. And 3rd World Countries just view it as a way to get paid billions from "guilty" developed nations. Additionally, the credibility of scientists and frontmen (like Gore and Hansen) is laughable when, 10 years after AIT, none of the dire predictions have come true. Go back and read the early posts of this thread and see how horribly inaccurate most of the predictions and climate models have been. To call it science is insulting.

Advancing nuclear technology is the best solution to the (supposed) AGW problem. A few huge breakthroughs in fusion technology and the CO2 situation goes away almost immediately.

[Edited on May 3, 2016 at 12:38 PM. Reason : k]

5/3/2016 12:30:52 PM

Science isnt about being right all the time. Even if you get rid of coal, you will still have livestock, gas and 100 years of carbon to deal with.

Also, i fear the environmental consequences of easy solutions. Overmining to produce batteries and solar panels will only lead to other forms of degradation. There has to be a shift of lifestyle. Consumption can mo longer be the goal of our global economic system.

5/3/2016 12:56:54 PM

^I agree with you.

There are currently over 10,000 coal seam fires ablaze on Earth. The CO2 emissions from that is very, very high. But why doesn't anyone do anything about it? Because there's no money to be made, that's why.

5/9/2016 12:09:14 PM

Are these coal seam fires the result of human actions, or naturally occurring phenomena?

5/9/2016 12:31:03 PM

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

Good writeup on the recent history of climate science. Interesting how the understandings have evolved over time.

6/7/2016 4:22:26 PM

All 36 countries that signed onto the Kyoto protocols have actually met their compliance goals.

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-06-kyoto-analysis-compliance.html

Total cost to comply is estimated to be 0.1% of each Country/region's GDP.


It's past time for us to get aggressive with this problem. We are capable of so much more.

6/14/2016 10:28:19 AM

kyoto had binding commitments. paris' are non binding so of course they will never be met.

6/14/2016 11:17:42 AM

Debbiedowner.jpg

6/14/2016 11:24:50 AM

Quote :

"here are currently over 10,000 coal seam fires ablaze on Earth. The CO2 emissions from that is very, very high. But why doesn't anyone do anything about it? Because there's no money to be made, that's why."

late to the party, but some google searching found a French-Sweedish study from 2002 that had coal fires accounting for ~0.31% of total world CO2 emissions

http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.5035!/coal%20fire%20report%20-%20final.pdf

meanwhile cars account for ~20% of the total US-only CO2 emissions, which are ~17% of the global total. in other words, US autos make up ~3.4% of total global CO2 emissions

so all the coal fires in the world are comparable to ~11% of the US-only vehicle emissions

maybe it's not money to be made. maybe is scope of impact

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 12:57 PM. Reason : good effort thou]

6/14/2016 12:57:26 PM

Welp, July officially the hottest year on record, 15th straight month of record setting temperatures.

We are technically out of El Niño, and it's just getting hotter

8/18/2016 7:34:49 AM

man, i put all that time in the the coal seam bullshit and didn't get a single response

8/18/2016 8:43:00 AM