If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Climate change skeptics point to freezing weather to deny historical warming trends. As you might expect, science explains why they are wrong, again   (science.time.com) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, climate change skeptics, market trends, atmospheric wave, global warming, climate change  
•       •       •

2732 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jan 2014 at 5:45 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-07 08:34:06 AM
Wow, just wow.
It's patently obvious things are changing. Man's role is less obvious, but likely.

Either way, I don't care.  Will it destroy the world? No.
Will it cause massive Human death and suffering? Probably.

But the behavior demonstrated in this thread alone shows that there is no valid reason to save Humans, or to prevent their suffering.
You deserve it, and you're going to get it.
 
2014-01-07 09:05:37 AM

dready zim: unless you are restricting `history` to under a few hundred years there is this.
  Older Peron. Throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average. The higher sea level lasted for several centuries and eroded coastlines. Several locations around the world have "Older Peron terraces" along their coasts as a result. If this is in doubt, it`s a wiki and you can just change it if you disagree. Just do that if you think it`s wrong and I can never quote it again. It was followed by the Younger Peron, Abrolhos, and Rottnest transgressions. During the Younger Peron transgression (c. 4000-3400 BCE), sea level peaked at 3 meters above the twentieth-century level; during the Abrolhos (c. 2600-2100 BCE), 1.5 meters; and during the Rottnest (c. 1600-1000 BCE), 1 meter.

If it is true I`d call almost 5m of sea level rise in a couple of hundred years a precedent, wouldn`t you?


It has been pointed out to you before that not only does the Wiki article you rely on for that claim not provide any references for its sea level claim, but that it is contradicted by Wiki itself on Holocene RSL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Feel free to point out these supposed SLR episodes globally greater than present.

It shouldn't take someone editing a Wikipedia article for you to stop using something it has been pointed out is incorrect. Why keep doing it?
 
2014-01-07 09:08:05 AM

dready zim: Also, on evolution, what about the peppered moth? That adapted to buildings being blackened by turning black and then after the clean air act of 1956 has turned back to mostly white again. To say *nothing* evolves that fast is simply wrong. Obviously larger slower breeding animals will adapt slower though.


Wrong. They did not "turn" black (actually dark gray), they were always that way. They still are today. Within the species there has always been variation in color, from grey-white to dark grey (you did know there were two sub-species, right?). When humans farked everything up with their soot, the lighter ones became more conspicuous, and were eaten. The darker ones were left. When the clean air act was put into effect and the environment responded, the lighter ones (which were always there) simply became less conspicuous again, just as they were before. The natural variation in color continued as before.

Evolution denotes biological and physical change over time. This did not happen here. What you're looking for is the term "natural selection through predation", and not "genetic drift". Throughout this period the lighter colored moths continued to exist, although not in the wild, where they were consumed.
Real evolution without the type of environmental forces humans create takes time. The poster I responded to was talking about climate change, usually takes a long time, and not a cold snap.

Deny harder.
 
2014-01-07 09:40:51 AM

OnlyM3: p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted



No he didn't
"It will not go back on climate change, he said, but will admit he had been 'extrapolating too far'."
 
2014-01-07 10:12:21 AM

whcrow: Andric: OnlyM3: Of course it is. My glasses of hot water have the same pesky problem of icing over.

Hello retard.  Did you know that "warm" and "cool" and their verb forms are relative references to temperature?  That object A can be warmer than object B, and that both can still be frozen?

No.  Because you're a retard.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. - Saul Alinsky


That's nice.

Ridicule is only irrational if its object is not ridiculous.  If Mr. Retard found it infuriating, well, that's fine.  I find willful ignorance infuriating, so I guess that makes us even.
 
2014-01-07 10:18:37 AM
Global Warming...nothing more than a bogus justification for the elites to exact more control over the citizens.
 
2014-01-07 10:27:49 AM

MilesTeg: Global Warming...nothing more than a bogus justification for the elites to exact more control over the citizens.


Or, you know, nothing like that at all, but rather the cumulative result of man-made changes to atmospheric chemistry, maybe.
 
2014-01-07 10:31:53 AM

Ishkur: I always found it amusing that people will second guess scientists when it comes to climate or evolution, but they have full, absolute, unconditional trust in medical science when they go to their doctor.


That does not strike me as true. Do you have any citations?

My experience isn't so much that people trust their doctor as they feel they have no better alternative and assume that, whatever the case may be, their doctor isn't going to hurt them -- even if s/he doesn't make them better. Many more pursue nonsense like homeopathy or herbal remedies. The whole experience of going in to the doctor's office when sick often comes across as voodoo. Yeah, take a temperature and throw antibiotics at the problem and hope it cures things. Oh, what's that, antibiotic resistant super strains because it is too expensive to look under a microscope at a saliva or blood sample and figure out what is really ailing somebody? Well shiat.

Then you have all the NIMBY people. If they trust the science so much, why aren't they OK living a few miles from a nuclear power plant?
 
2014-01-07 10:36:34 AM

MilesTeg: Global Warming...nothing more than a bogus justification for the elites to exact more control over the citizens.


Global Warming denial - nothing more than a bogus justification for big oil to continue to take our money and make us smile while doing it.

/Yay, bald assertions are easy!
//Elites?  I missed where the climate scientists were living in skyscrapers looking down on the unwashed masses. Oil executives, on the other hand, live in shanty towns.
 
2014-01-07 10:43:29 AM

Feepit: If they trust the science so much, why aren't they OK living a few miles from a nuclear power plant?


It's perfectly possible to trust the science while distrusting the engineering, the construction, or the managers cutting corners on training, staffing, safety inspections, maintenance, or regulatory compliance.

In other words, it's perfectly rational to say "I believe this nuclear power plant would be perfectly safe if it operates exactly as designed; but I don't trust that it will operate exactly as designed".

Yes, I'm sure that there are people who distrust nuclear power plants even when operating as designed; but not everyone who distrusts the safety of nuclear power is a crackpot or selectively rational.
 
2014-01-07 10:56:23 AM

czetie: Feepit: If they trust the science so much, why aren't they OK living a few miles from a nuclear power plant?

It's perfectly possible to trust the science while distrusting the engineering, the construction, or the managers cutting corners on training, staffing, safety inspections, maintenance, or regulatory compliance.

In other words, it's perfectly rational to say "I believe this nuclear power plant would be perfectly safe if it operates exactly as designed; but I don't trust that it will operate exactly as designed".

Yes, I'm sure that there are people who distrust nuclear power plants even when operating as designed; but not everyone who distrusts the safety of nuclear power is a crackpot or selectively rational.


I would be surprised if the average person can distinguish between science and engineering.

Anyway, my point was that it isn't so much an issue of trust as people pursuing the path of least resistance. Lots of people hate to fly, but they do it anyway because it is the only practical and budget-friendly way to travel long distances or overseas. Aside from as a source of entertainment-controversy and an excuse to throw out an opinion, most people don't care about climate change and whether it is caused by humans because they can't see how it is having an immediate impact on their lives.
 
2014-01-07 11:02:07 AM

Feepit: Aside from as a source of entertainment-controversy and an excuse to throw out an opinion, most people don't care about climate change and whether it is caused by humans because they can't see how it is having an immediate impact on their lives.


I don't think that's quite capturing the nuance of the situation. I think plenty of people care, but view it as a long term problem, whereas they view the economy/jobs as a near term problem. If you ask people to rank problems based on seriousness if nothing is done about them in the long run, climate gets close to the top. But if you ask them what is concerning them right this second, it's down at the bottom.

http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/research/opinio n- polls-underestimate-americans-concern-about-the-environment-2/

So you're definitely correct that it's a problem viewed as distant, but I think it still is something people worry about long term.
 
2014-01-07 11:22:10 AM
Science is about questioning everything.  I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.

Especially when even scientists are quite aware of the 'problems of scale' - being that a lab experiment doesn't have 100% of the variables that a world experiment does.

Anyone ever read that book were scientists were deemed untrustworthy, and if you were a scientist you could be put in prison?  With the overabundance of 'because science', and the poor job scientists have been doing (butter bad!  No Good!  Peanuts Bad!  No, Wait!), I'm getting the feeling we're heading in that direction.
 
2014-01-07 11:30:13 AM
the sky is falling!!!

send your money to algore, quick!

freakin hilarious.
 
2014-01-07 11:35:05 AM

Jon Snow: So you're definitely correct that it's a problem viewed as distant, but I think it still is something people worry about long term.


Does that poll show a breakdown between responses that referenced the environment and responses that referenced global warming? The linked pdf brought up an error page. In any event, the two responses being lumped together strikes me as misleading. They aren't the same, even if one can influence the other. There are likely people who are opposed to pollution, deforestation, and so forth who might not necessarily care about global warming. They might have been people who were thinking about keeping national parks clean for their grandchildren. Moreover, there are ways to destroy the environment that don't have any primary or secondary influences on temperature.
 
2014-01-07 11:38:13 AM

Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything.  I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.


So you think denialists are just 'questioning' climate change? Interesting.
 
2014-01-07 11:42:26 AM

Feepit: I would be surprised if the average person can distinguish between science and engineering.


The average person may not be able to distinguish between science and engineering, but they can distinguish between profits and funding, and most ecological disasters are a result of one or both (or lack thereof). That doesn't mean they don't trust the science, it means they don't trust other people to do what the science says properly.
 
2014-01-07 11:45:06 AM
Havokmon:

Hey! I'll try to field these. Please take my responses in the cordial manner they're intended. I will refer to some behaviors, and I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you of doing them, but using them to illustrate examples that hopefully will help our conversation.

Science is about questioning everything.

Not exactly. It's about rigorously testing things. It's not about refusing to acknowledge when evidence becomes overwhelming, jamming one's fingers in one's ears, and continuing to "just ask questions". That's what creationists and other antiscience groups do to muddy the waters and confuse bystanders.

 I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.

Questioning is fine. What questions are you asking? And if/when your questions are answered, are you going to move on, or pretend like you were never given the answer? It's the latter that people have a problem with, for (I hope) understandable reasons.

Especially when even scientists are quite aware of the 'problems of scale' - being that a lab experiment doesn't have 100% of the variables that a world experiment does.

A model need not be a 100% replication of reality in order to be useful. This is something understood throughout all of science, and doesn't seem to be a problem for people in almost every single aspect of science. Except when it comes to something like climate change or evolution.

Even grossly oversimplified 0-dimensional energy balance models can tell us useful things about climate. We don't need to explicitly model every aspect of a system to answer general questions about its mean state.

Anyone ever read that book were scientists were deemed untrustworthy, and if you were a scientist you could be put in prison?  With the overabundance of 'because science', and the poor job scientists have been doing (butter bad!  No Good!  Peanuts Bad!  No, Wait!), I'm getting the feeling we're heading in that direction.

You seem to be conflating the media's poor job of communicating medical findings with science doing something wrong. A lot of the "A is good for you, no it's bad for you" arises from grossly oversimplified reporting that generalizes some aspect of a given food (perhaps its level of fat) to an overall "good/bad" label that the scientific study in question does not address. Then, when another study examines another aspect of that food (the relative health effects of trans vs. unsaturated fats in margarine vs. butter), the media reports a contrary narrative, even though the actual scientific studies are not themselves in conflict at all.

Hope that helps!
 
2014-01-07 11:46:01 AM

JohnnyC: Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything.  I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.

So you think denialists are just 'questioning' climate change? Interesting.


If you consider anyone who questions climate change a 'denialist', then yes.
 
2014-01-07 11:49:37 AM

Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything. I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.


Science is not about questioning everything -- it is about investigative inquiry. There's a difference.

Just asking questions is useless and doesn't resolve anything. You must ask deliberate, constructive questions, that are falsifiable and keyed toward a greater understanding of the field, concept, or dataset. This is something I think a lot of people just don't understand about skepticism. It's not about having doubts, it's about having doubts with conditions. If you don't specify what it is you're questioning and how and why and given what parameters, then you're not asking questions, you're just being annoying.
 
2014-01-07 11:51:21 AM

Havokmon: If you consider anyone who questions climate change a 'denialist', then yes.


Are you using "question" in the sense that you have actual questions to ask, want to hear answers, and then will shape your views according to that receipt of information?

Or "question" in the sense of endlessly repeating that we just don't know enough, even though we do?
 
2014-01-07 11:55:30 AM

Jon Snow: Havokmon:

You seem to be conflating the media's poor job of communicating medical findings with science doing something wrong.


This.  But not what you think. There isn't such a problem with 'science' being incorrect, it's the 'scientists' doing things incorrectly (ie, not accounting for all variables) that I'm concerned about.  My examples, I believe, are not that of the media oversimplifying, but scientists (not science) providing incorrect/inappropriate information that is acted upon in a manner that negatively affects us 'because science'.

In the greater scheme of things, I haven no problem with reducing emissions, but let's do away with the "our world will turn into an iceball/fireball" media scare tactics and concentrate on something actually useful.
 
2014-01-07 12:00:43 PM

Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything.


No, it isn't. It's about testing, evaluating and refining. Physicists don't "question" Special Relativity, because it's well-established, and there is no evidence to contradict current thinking on the subject - every test has confirmed its validity. That's not to say there are no detractors, however their ideas are, to put it mildly, scientifically dubious. The difference with climate change/global warming is there is a huge moneyed interest in promoting the status quo, i.e., fossil fuel consumption. These don't lend any scientific credibility to the deniers' arguments, just volume.
 
2014-01-07 12:01:52 PM

Havokmon: it's the 'scientists' doing things incorrectly (ie, not accounting for all variables) that I'm concerned about.  My examples, I believe, are not that of the media oversimplifying, but scientists (not science) providing incorrect/inappropriate information that is acted upon in a manner that negatively affects us 'because science'.


When, specifically, is this happening?

And please keep in mind the difference between scientists, medical doctors (many of whom have incredibly little training in actual science after their initial undergrad courses), and policymakers.

Havokmon: let's do away with the "our world will turn into an iceball/fireball" media scare tactics and concentrate on something actually useful.


Again, your complaint is with the media, not with the science. So why are you framing your problem as something to do with the science?
 
2014-01-07 12:48:31 PM
we don't know what will happen in the next decade, but we know what will happen in 100 yrs.  because we are scientists.
 
2014-01-07 12:49:29 PM

MechaPyx: The Earth's climate fluctuates over time. Fact. How do I know this?

Ice ages motherfarkers.

The ONLY question is how much of an affect we have on it.


Exactly. The cute little chart posted earlier (deniers see it as short downward lines, GW proponents see the longer upslope) ignores this. Sure the temp might have gone up over the last 40 years... But that's just the last stage of climbing out of a multi-thousand year dip in temps that caused the last ice age.

That's why I maintain that BOTH sides lie with statistics.
 
2014-01-07 12:59:25 PM

colon_pow: we don't know what will happen in the next decade, but we know what will happen in 100 yrs.  because we are scientists.

boundary value problems are not subject to the same complexities as initial value problems.

Let me blow your mind.

I can't tell you what the next roll, or even the next ten rolls, of a fair six-sided die will be. But I can tell you that over 1,000 throws, the mean value will converge on 3.5.

Further, I can tell you that if you swap out the fair six-sided die for a fair eight-sided die what the impact on the mean will be, the impact on the range, the impact on the statistics of all manner of "extreme events", etc.

Describing changes to the mean state of a system due to changes in its boundary values is not sorcery.
 
2014-01-07 01:06:35 PM
fredklein: MechaPyx: The Earth's climate fluctuates over time. Fact. How do I know this?

Ice ages motherfarkers.

The ONLY question is how much of an affect we have on it.

Exactly. The cute little chart posted earlier (deniers see it as short downward lines, GW proponents see the longer upslope) ignores this. Sure the temp might have gone up over the last 40 years... But that's just the last stage of climbing out of a multi-thousand year dip in temps that caused the last ice age.

That's why I maintain that BOTH sides lie with statistics.


No, not at all.

The Last Glacial Maximum reached its maximum extent around 20 thousand years ago. Orbital variations pace such glaciation cycling. Orbital forcing (along with significant feedbacks from ice-albedo and the carbon cycle (i.e. GHGs)) melted us out of the LGM, but that warming reached its maximum around 9-6 thousand years ago (there is significant latitudinal variation as to the timing of the max). For the past several thousand years, we were gradually cooling before anthropogenic warming reversed this.

i.imgur.com

Here are the data, feel free to plot them yourself:  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198/suppl/DC1

Out of curiosity,  MechaPyx and  fredklein, what made you believe that we were still warming out of the LGM?
 
2014-01-07 01:10:20 PM

whcrow: Alinsky


*** DRINK! ***
 
2014-01-07 03:20:11 PM
Jon snow- your chart proves me right. On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.
 
2014-01-07 03:24:26 PM

fredklein: Jon snow- your chart proves me right. On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.


The natural trend in the absence of our GHGs emissions would be to continue the cooling.

How are you not understanding this?

The "cycle" in the absence of humans would be to slowly cool until we were in a new glacial maximum, over thousands of years. And then tens of thousands of years later warm out of it, and cool again, etc. Our GHG emissions have reversed the cyclical nature of orbitally-paced glaciation that has operated for well over 800,000 years.
 
2014-01-07 03:30:23 PM

fredklein: On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.


It normally takes the cycle thousands of years to effect these kinds of changes. Now it's happening in less than a hundred.
 
2014-01-07 03:45:50 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: Jon snow- your chart proves me right. On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.

The natural trend in the absence of our GHGs emissions would be to continue the cooling.

How are you not understanding this?

The "cycle" in the absence of humans would be to slowly cool until we were in a new glacial maximum, over thousands of years. And then tens of thousands of years later warm out of it, and cool again, etc. Our GHG emissions have reversed the cyclical nature of orbitally-paced glaciation that has operated for well over 800,000 years.


Down, up, down... Down??

Makes no sense.

And your own chart disproves your 'tens of thousands of years' cycle- the left slope goes from -.2 to +.2 in, what, 2000 years?? Why was it perfectly fine when it warmed up that fast back then, but totally 'oh, noes!!!' When it's warming up fast now?

And, why does your chart only go that far back? Is there no data further back? Or might it show that some cycles are quicker than others, and that this current warming is not unprecedented?
 
2014-01-07 03:50:32 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.

It normally takes the cycle thousands of years to effect these kinds of changes. Now it's happening in less than a hundred.


We've only had accurate, first-hand temperature measurements for... How long? About a hundred years or so? I'm pretty sure we didn't have satellite imagery of the polar ice pack from 2000 years ago. Or tens of thousands of weather stations providing temperature measurements throughout the world.
 
2014-01-07 04:00:08 PM

fredklein: Down, up, down... Down??

Makes no sense.


And your own chart disproves your 'tens of thousands of years' cycle- 

That's because it's zoomed in on the recent past and doesn't show the full range of the behavior of the cycle:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-07 04:04:53 PM

fredklein: Ishkur: fredklein: On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.

It normally takes the cycle thousands of years to effect these kinds of changes. Now it's happening in less than a hundred.

We've only had accurate, first-hand temperature measurements for... How long? About a hundred years or so? I'm pretty sure we didn't have satellite imagery of the polar ice pack from 2000 years ago. Or tens of thousands of weather stations providing temperature measurements throughout the world.


If you think we know so little about the behavior of paleoclimate, why were you convinced that the present warming was merely a continuation of the melting out of the LGM just a few comments ago? You don't get to have it both ways.

If you want to bring up paleoclimatic changes as a challenge to our knowledge that humans are warming the planet, you don't just get to ignore what the data show when they refute your claim.

We know what drives glaciation cycling. It's not magic. We know what the climate was doing in the absence of anthropogenic warming. We know what increasing GHGs does to globally averaged surface temperature.

More importantly, we know that warming from increasing GHGs has distinct fingerprints from other kinds of warming, like orbital forcing. And we can observe those fingerprints, like increased absorption of radiation in GHG wavelengths, stratospheric cooling, etc. taking place.
 
2014-01-07 04:09:33 PM

fredklein: We've only had accurate, first-hand temperature measurements for


Why does this matter? Almost nothing in a vast number of scientific disciplines is due to direct observation. In fact, very few things are. Science relies on induction and inference far more than observation: It takes a look at the evidence and then builds models for how that evidence came to be.

The evidence shows that changes in the world's climate is a gradual process (by human scales), so what has been happening over the past 100 years is unprecedented.

I'm interested in why you are so skeptical about this specific scientific discipline and not, say, evolution, cosmology, plate tectonics, geophysics or even history. None of them rely on direct observation to assert their theories yet productive conclusions are still developed that you probably agree with without much resistance. What makes climate change so special?

fredklein: I'm pretty sure we didn't have satellite imagery of the polar ice pack from 2000 years ago. Or tens of thousands of weather stations providing temperature measurements throughout the world.


And no detective ever sees the murder firsthand yet cases still get solved. How? He takes a look at the evidence and figures out whodunit. That's what most scientists do. Your concerns are unwarranted.
 
2014-01-07 04:17:22 PM
Oblig:

scienceblogs.com
 
2014-01-07 04:45:09 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: Down, up, down... Down??

Makes no sense.

And your own chart disproves your 'tens of thousands of years' cycle- 

That's because it's zoomed in on the recent past and doesn't show the full range of the behavior of the cycle:


I see lots of (relatively) slow, jagged drops, followed by sudden rises. Unlike this last time which was a slow, jagged drop... Followed by a sudden rise.

Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years! Everyone panic!!
 
2014-01-07 04:51:12 PM

fredklein: I see lots of (relatively) slow, jagged drops, followed by sudden rises. Unlike this last time which was a slow, jagged drop... Followed by a sudden rise.

Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years! Everyone panic!!


I can't tell if you're trying to troll me at this point or not.

The baseline climate prior to human interference was already at the "sudden rise" in the 800,000 year chart. Look again, and pay attention to the x axis. It goes from the past (800,000 years before present) towards the present from left to right.

The next step of the "cycle" would be a gradual cooling, which is what we were seeing before we let loose with a geologically rapid carbon pulse.
 
2014-01-07 04:51:16 PM

fredklein: Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years!


You understand the last time C02 levels were at 400 ppm, human beings didn't exist, right?
 
2014-01-07 04:59:21 PM
Jon snow- I didn't say we knew nothing, just that we now have much more accurate data for the last hundred years or so. And (coincidentally) that time period is the same time period we seem to notice the change. Funny that.
 
2014-01-07 05:03:55 PM

fredklein: Funny that.


Right!

Because the fact that we put thermometers around the globe 150 years ago is what is causing radiation to be increasingly absorbed at GHG wavelengths, the stratosphere to cool, and all of the other things that distinguish the warming we're seeing due to our emissions of GHGs from other potential drivers of warming.

That makes perfect sense and is not at all an intellectually bankrupt failure to confront the physics of radiative forcing.
 
2014-01-07 05:24:06 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years!

You understand the last time C02 levels were at 400 ppm, human beings didn't exist, right?


You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
 
2014-01-07 05:30:01 PM

fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg


Right. That's the preindustrial data.

The data before human emissions of GHGs.

You know that's old, trapped air taken from ice cores, right, and not a snapshot of present conditions?
 
2014-01-07 05:31:14 PM

fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?


uhh.... no

(and would it hurt you guys to hyperlink your links? Takes two seconds)
 
2014-01-07 06:20:31 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg

Right. That's the preindustrial data.

The data before human emissions of GHGs.

You know that's old, trapped air taken from ice cores, right, and not a snapshot of present conditions?


Jon, I admire your patience enormously. I really do. It exceeds my own by orders of magnitude. But I think there comes a point where you have to accept that fredklein is either being willfully ignorant, or he really is just that stupid. However, the rest of us thank you for trying, as well as for all the work you do.
 
2014-01-07 06:27:10 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

uhh.... no

(and would it hurt you guys to hyperlink your links? Takes two seconds)


Well, yeah, if you wanna take your CO2 readings on an active volcano.

And I didn't hyperlink because I was on my phone.
 
2014-01-07 06:29:34 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg

Right. That's the preindustrial data.

The data before human emissions of GHGs.


Um, No.

That chart goes up to 1950, which is long after the Industrial Revolution.
 
2014-01-07 06:31:49 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: Funny that.

Right!

Because the fact that we put thermometers around the globe 150 years ago is what is causing radiation to be increasingly absorbed at GHG wavelengths, the stratosphere to cool, and all of the other things that distinguish the warming we're seeing due to our emissions of GHGs from other potential drivers of warming.

That makes perfect sense and is not at all an intellectually bankrupt failure to confront the physics of radiative forcing.


Strawman. I never said that placing thermometers did ANYTHING,... except give us more accurate data to look at. And that, maybe, if we had more accurate data from thousands of years ago, instead of third-hand extrapolations, we would have a clearer picture of what conditions were back then.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report