Would that be the same Peter Gleick who faked emails to slander a think-tank he disagreed with? He doesn't get to write columns about fooling people.
Diadem wrote:Half a dozen people with 1-2 posts, shouting in this thread that global warming in a hoax.
I wonder, do you anti-science bigots have message board where you coordinate that kind of action? Is this some kind of paid campaign by lobbyists to make it look like climate change is not a near universally accepted fact?
Or maybe we lurk when it's funny, and post when we have something worth saying. (Yeah, I have like 90 posts, but that's over 7 years)
JPhi1618 wrote:I gotta say that I don't follow all of the Global Warming news...
The main thing that no one has convinced me of is a point this comic clearly illustrates. So we had all that ice and cold 20,000 years ago, right? And we didn't have coal-fired power plants or cars or smog or anything? And somehow the Earth warmed up to where it is now right? So there must be some natural process for cooling and warming the Earth, and that's been happening for (b/m)illions(?) of years? But, now humans think that they have the power to warm and cool the Earth and that we're somehow responsible for the current state of affairs?
Let's be clear - I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't happening (I just don't have the data), I'm asking that if it is happening, and its happened before, what makes us so sure that humans are the most responsible for the current trend rather that some natural phenomenon? And please, don't slam me as some "denier" - I really would like some links or answers to have a better understanding of why we think human activity is doing this.
Also, bonus question - take a huge forest fire that consumes 1M acres of trees and grass. How do those "emissions" compare to industrial emissions output? Is that giant fire equal to a month of the US emissions? 2 months? 12? Or are they apples and oranges? What about a volcano? Of course, my point is that tons of carbon is released by natural processes, so how does that really compare with human output?
The reason it gets attributed to humanity is that humans have been dramatically increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and this does have some greenhouse effect. It's hardly the only effect - obviously, solar fluctuations dominate the system far above anything else - but the correlation, while not terribly robust, does exist, and the effect makes sense.
As for forest fires, this
says that forests weigh 35-40 tons per acre, and a tree is mostly cellulose, which is 44% carbon by weight. We'll use the low estimate, and say that a forest fire adds 35*0.44=15.4 tons of carbon per acre burned. Coal is basically pure carbon, so that million-acre fire is the equivalent of 15.4 million tons of coal. For comparison, in 2011, the world produced about 22 million tons of coal per day, so that fire is about 16 hours of human production. Natural carbon dioxide production actually greatly exceeds human, but the difference is that trees grow back about a million times faster(not hyperbole) than coal beds, so last year's burn scar sucks a lot of this year's fire back out of the atmosphere in a way that doesn't happen with coal and oil.
jestingrabbit wrote: cellocgw wrote:
PostScript: I would like to point out, purely as an exercise, that we could increase personal energy consumption while simultaneously dropping CO2 emissions to a pittance by simply reducing the world's population to something reasonable like 700 million.
Or by removing the most wasteful 700 million.
You mean the ones who run civilization?
arto7 wrote:Interesting on the parks but now do the same thing with cities. I put in Chicago, New York, London, Moscow, Los Angeles. Put in cities on your own and tell me the trend that you find.
You find the urban heat island effect. Bane of global warming data integrity since the dawn of the thermometer.
PeteP wrote:And much worse you talk about "global climate change" like it means either global warming or cooling because they are hedging their bets. So either you are being deceitful again or you talk about a topic you don't know anything about. Either option isn't that good.
Seems like the phrase only exists to parry "But the earth isn't actually warming up" - that's certainly the only time I see true believers care much about the difference between "global warming" and "climate change". Going nonspecific to parry an opponent's thrust is good debate tactics, but not terribly honest.
Diadem wrote:No, people who disagree with me are merely people who disagree with me. But someone who is actively trying to bring about global devastation on a scale equivalent to a major asteroid strike, only for the sake of their ego, is ... well, actually bigot is much too tame a word.
So you think people who disagree with you actually secretly agree with you, but they argue for the devastation of the planet just to spite you? Jesus, that's like a whole psychological disorders course wrapped up in two sentences.
mel_env_eng wrote:Thanks, maxwell_smart, for commenting on the 200m predicted maximum sea level rise due to glacier and ice-cap melt. According to the USGS and NSDIC, this actually should be about 70-80 meters. Since I teach this figure in an undergraduate environmental engineering course, I'm curious about Randall's source for the larger number. I know this is an unlikely request, but it would be great if he (or anyone else in the forum who is familiar with it) could post the data source for this larger number. Maybe it includes the addition of a thermal expansion factor due to rising temperatures, but I haven't seen it anywhere else.
As a rule of thumb, overestimates in the global warming debate are rectally sourced data. There's a group that believes it to be their moral obligation to scare the bajeezus out of everybody, without regard to facts, because they figure the scarier they are the more likely society is to do something. (Not that Randall is necessarily part of this group - though for all I know he might be - but I suspect the original source of a number 2.5x too high is someone talking about turning the planet into Venus as though it'll happen next week.)
Alsadius wrote:The data is falling out of the bottom end of their confidence intervals,
Source? I tried to google, but all I found was a host of articles built around this one image
, which doesn't reference the models themselves.
I got it from a blogger I read, with no citation, so I can't actually trace it back. Apologies. However, as a proxy, look at the IPCC report from 2001, closest in time to the 1998 peak. They had 19 simulations run, the graph of which is here
. I can't find any confidence intervals in a quick search, but 19 is close enough to 20 that I feel fairly confident looking at the bottom projection at any given time as a reasonable guess at the lower bound(in a back-of-napkin sort of way - I'll freely admit that this isn't rigorous). 2001 was 13 years ago, so we're in year 13, which is where the pink line dips right down. A bit of Paint-fu says that's about -0.15 degrees. (+0.57 is the high bound, for comparison). Of course, this depends heavily on when the estimates were done - we're about 0.05 degrees warmer than 2001, and 0.01 cooler than 1998, but 99 and 00 were cool years, so if those are the baselines, we've had significant warming. Frankly, I don't have the time to dig into it in great detail, so this isn't terribly useful either, but the picture is cool.
Consider the claim retracted until I find a real source.
philip1201 wrote:A billion people displaced in Asian coastal regions. Agriculture yields decrease as weather patterns change unexpectedly. Invasion, starvation, riots, wars, a hundred nuclear bombs fired by Indian and Pakistani radicals driven to desperation, with the targets probably including Europe and China. Between 5% and 50% of the world's population dead. "Not too bad" my ass.
See, this is why nobody takes fearmongering seriously.
synp wrote:The scientist would not be shunned, or be blacklisted from receiving further grants. Such is not the case for climate change.
Source? Also, please consider that the world is not the US, or even the anglosphere, and climate change is not a controversial topic everywhere.
The places where it's not controversial are the places where nobody speaks against the theory. This doesn't make those who do any more socially acceptable.
This is really interesting if perhaps overambitious. Thanks Cocoa!
Completely impossible, and based on a stupid premise(that it's a lack of space preventing us from building solar panels, when that's the least relevant concern). For an unnecessarily lengthy mockery of the idea, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4