Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

I think it will boil down the actual proposal that lands on his desk. If it restructures environmental regulations in a way that is great for the environment and economy, I think he'll sign it. If it ends up being a cash grab like the stimulus package back in 2009, he'll veto it.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

14 August 1912 , Rodney and Otamatea Times

 

[Nuckles56]

Well, so much for people claiming that it was created in the last 30 years.

 

[qubit]

14 August 1912 , Rodney and Otamatea Times

That's a great find, Caps. Shows that man made climate change is nothing new and was realized well over 100 years ago.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

A New Zealand publication. Too bad it doesn't cite a source.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

A New Zealand publication. Too bad it doesn't cite a source.

The clipping from 14 August 1912 was published in the Rodney and Otamatea Times and found online at the National Library of New Zealand.

The four-sentence article was sandwiched between an article on a skipping machine and another about a proposed Russian tunnel that would connect the Black and Caspian Sea.

The piece had also appeared in Australian newspapers - on 10 July 1912 in the Shoalhaven Telegraph and then in the Brainwood Dispatch on 17 July of the same year.


The 'greenhouse' effect was officially first discovered in 1824 by a French mathematician and physicist, Joseph Fourier.

He calculated that if take into account the size of the sun and Earth and the distance between them then the earth should be far cooler than it actually is

 

[FordGT90Concept]

But who did the math to get the 2:7 ratio that was the inspiration for that piece? A source should have been cited for that.

 

[the54thvoid]

But who did the math to get the 2:7 ratio that was the inspiration for that piece? A source should have been cited for that.

So far back in time you're asking for a bit much there. However, from1994:

https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.

So in the 1990's the ratio would be 1:2.8 (or 2:5.7). Factor in cleaner methods in the 90's and the old article at 2:7 wouldn't seem too far off the mark, even if it was wrong.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

 

[Steevo]

I doubt that he could account for the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the earths core, or knew that the core was molten metal and rock. I believe its estimated that between 20 and 44 TW of power in the form of heat is emitted from the earth each day by the earth itself, and between 14 and 20 of that is estimated to be from fission reaction and nuclear decay. Some project the earth will still have a molten core by the time the sun dies, some argue that with the half life of the highly active elements such as uranium being half depleted already we may cool faster now, but still on a scale of millions of years.

The core is slowly cooling over time, the amount of decay will lessen, and no amount of solar activity will warm it back up until our sun expands (a few billion years if not more) as at starts fusing heavier elements and its outer layers envelope and dissolve earth.

So in the big picture, global warming of a couple degrees is only temporary, but we have a lot of cities on the coasts, and lower salinity will cause unknown changes in the oceans. What do we do, continue to release gasses that cause the temperature of earth to increase and hope that the earth is capable of correcting itself? Or lower our impact and continue to take measurements and perform closely monitored experiments so we can learn what will most likely happen naturally?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So far back in time you're asking for a bit much there.

Is it really though? Without having attributions, it comes across as a phony.

However, from1994:

https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

IPCC was formed in 1988 to research the impact of greenhouse gasses on climate. The sirens on coal were blaring long before climate became a concern. For example, the 1952 Great Smog of London.

So in the 1990's the ratio would be 1:2.8 (or 2:5.7). Factor in cleaner methods in the 90's and the old article at 2:7 wouldn't seem too far off the mark, even if it was wrong.

Indeed the estimation was close which is why I expected attribution of some kind. The lack of attribution makes me suspicious.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

I'd differ to Quoting Bender : kill all humans.

 

[Papahyooie]

OH NO! GLOBAL WARMING!

Oh wait... Nevermind...

 

[magibeg]

OH NO! GLOBAL WARMING!

Oh wait... Nevermind...

You do realize that trying to measure a change with a graph in 100,000 increments for an event that has happened over 100 years won't accurately display?

 

[Papahyooie]

You do realize that trying to measure a change with a graph in 100,000 increments for an event that has happened over 100 years won't accurately display?

Yes. Indeed that's the entire point... the "global warming" that we have experienced is absolutely minuscule and irrelevant compared to Earth's own natural cycles, and moreover fits perfectly into that natural cycle as expected regardless of human intervention.

 

[qubit]

Yes. Indeed that's the entire point... the "global warming" that we have experienced is absolutely minuscule and irrelevant compared to Earth's own natural cycles, and moreover fits perfectly into that natural cycle as expected regardless of human intervention.

You've chosen one dodgy graph that appears to support your global warming hoax idea when there's tons of good evidence that it's real. Just look through this thread for lots of examples

 

[Papahyooie]

dodgy graph

See, that's exactly the sort of confirmation bias that allows things like this to continue. I've read the thread. I am aware of all the science involved.
When data supports your conclusion, it's "evidence." When data doesn't support your conclusion, it's "dodgy."
That's absolutely antithetical to the very core of science. Every data source, every experiment should be collected and performed with the intent to *disprove* a hypothesis. The scientific method is skeptical by design. And yet somehow we have this cult that believes that any assault on a hypothesis should be met with lashing out and ridiculing dissenters (not saying you personally, but in general.)

One graph is not the point. The point is that the cherry picked data from the last hundred years shows a rise that doesn't tell the entire story. Zoom out to include other (also proven scientifically sound) more long term studies of tree core sampling, ice core sampling, and geological evidence, and you see that the rise we are experiencing now has nothing to do with human intervention, as the cycle has been going on for millennia. A myopic view of climate change is not science. A true scientist would seek to put the data in context with the bigger picture before determining a causal relationship.

But hey, that doesn't bring in the grant money.

 

[qubit]

Most scientists in the world agree that climate change is real - that "consensus" they keep talking about on the news. I've seen enough climate change (and especially warming) in the time I've lived on this planet and looked at various articles over time that I tend to believe them now. My worry was that the science was corrupted by vested interests, but it doesn't look like that's the case. In short, I was somewhat skeptical when I first started this thread almost 2 years ago, but not anymore.

 

[the54thvoid]

Yes. Indeed that's the entire point... the "global warming" that we have experienced is absolutely minuscule and irrelevant compared to Earth's own natural cycles, and moreover fits perfectly into that natural cycle as expected regardless of human intervention.

We as temporal shit clingers on this rocky planet have the incapacity to realise beyond our own existence the damage we can add to that natural cycle. Life is not permanent and we as a species are no different. Your point is probably not a denial of global warming but is instead now framed in the position of, "what's it matter anyway - the planet has cycles we cannot control". And unfortunately you are quite correct. The planet has a way of doing what it pleases, as does the sun, the magnetosphere and other such cosmic entitities that dont really care what we do, and dont care when we die off.

However, it would be quite nice and thoughtful that if the natural destructive geoglacial cycles were to resume in a few thousand years from now, that we could at least not fuck things up BEFORE then? You know, focus on finding solutions to the problems that will hit us hard one day.

See, that's exactly the sort of confirmation bias that allows things like this to continue. I've read the thread. I am aware of all the science involved.
When data supports your conclusion, it's "evidence." When data doesn't support your conclusion, it's "dodgy."
That's absolutely antithetical to the very core of science. Every data source, every experiment should be collected and performed with the intent to *disprove* a hypothesis. The scientific method is skeptical by design. And yet somehow we have this cult that believes that any assault on a hypothesis should be met with lashing out and ridiculing dissenters (not saying you personally, but in general.)

One graph is not the point. The point is that the cherry picked data from the last hundred years shows a rise that doesn't tell the entire story. Zoom out to include other (also proven scientifically sound) more long term studies of tree core sampling, ice core sampling, and geological evidence, and you see that the rise we are experiencing now has nothing to do with human intervention, as the cycle has been going on for millennia. A myopic view of climate change is not science. A true scientist would seek to put the data in context with the bigger picture before determining a causal relationship.

The irony. You say that science is benefitted by a skeptical view and that it is myopic to ignore the data. The data has not been ignored and the vast majority (even from companies like Exon in the 70's) understand that the climate is accelerating faster now than it has done for centuries and that humans are the 'likely' contributor to that model. Just because there are one or two outliers, does not make it a worthy debate.

Also, the EPICA graph has errors due to compaction of ice and CO2 being 'squeezed' out. Article here to explain:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

NASA (or is it the man ands this is all false news?)

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What Exxon knew.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Notably - they also spent millions to debunk the science. Obviously - it still has a knock on effect and many people still doubt the science because (like Bob Dole who claimed milk was a carcinogen just like tobacco) powerful American lobbies make the masses confused.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ge-deniers-even-exxon-s-ceo-has-abandoned-you

And it is so amusing that people think those ultra rich corporations who rely on the product which is at the forefront of the cause of warming are telling you the truth.

One fucking word for those that haven't learned the lesons of the past. Tobacco.

 

[Papahyooie]

Most scientists in the world agree that climate change is real - that "consensus" they keep talking about on the news. I've seen enough climate change (and especially warming) in the time I've lived on this planet and looked at various articles over time that I tend to believe them now. My worry was that the science was corrupted by vested interests, but it doesn't look like that's the case. In short, I was somewhat skeptical when I first started this thread almost 2 years ago, but not anymore.

You've seen enough global warming in the time you've lived on the planet...? So you've noticed >1 degree Celsius change in global average temperature over your lifetime?

 

[qubit]

You've seen enough global warming in the time you've lived on the planet...? So you've noticed >1 degree Celsius change in global average temperature over your lifetime?

haha, very funny. There have been so many "unseasonally" warm periods in the weather reports lately that it's not just my subjective impression that it feels warmer overall where I live in sunny Blighty. And all those extreme weather events that seem to be getting more frequent lately.

Also, you can't conveniently ignore the other bit I said about seeing the evidence for it.

Look, if you wanna be a climate change denier, be my guest. Heck, Trump is so you must be right, lol.

 

[Ahhzz]

haha, very funny. There have been so many "unseasonally" warm periods in the weather reports lately that it's not just my subjective impression that it feels warmer overall where I live in sunny Blighty. And all those extreme weather events that seem to be getting more frequent lately.

Also, you can't conveniently ignore the other bit I said about seeing the evidence for it.

Look, if you wanna be a climate change denier, be my guest. Heck, Trump is so you must be right, lol.

I'd like to apologize to others living on the planet, who weren't able to affect the recent election in the United States of Assholes, on behalf of any of those USAers who like to use #45* as an excuse for the way they behave, or the stances they take...

 

[Papahyooie]

haha, very funny. There have been so many "unseasonally" warm periods in the weather reports lately that it's not just my subjective impression that it feels warmer overall where I live in sunny Blighty. And all those extreme weather events that seem to be getting more frequent lately.

Also, you can't conveniently ignore the other bit I said about seeing the evidence for it.

Look, if you wanna be a climate change denier, be my guest. Heck, Trump is so you must be right, lol.

Well, the data says it's been >1 degree Celsius over your lifetime. So whether you've seen the evidence or not, you would not be able to feel a difference. Moreover, if we want to get anecdotal here, where i live it is currently 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The average for today in previous years is 92. So personal experiences are meaningless here.

As for Trump, I am definitely not a supporter, and while I can understand your misconception I'd rather stay on topic here.

 

[Papahyooie]

We as temporal shit clingers on this rocky planet have the incapacity to realise beyond our own existence the damage we can add to that natural cycle. Life is not permanent and we as a species are no different. Your point is probably not a denial of global warming but is instead now framed in the position of, "what's it matter anyway - the planet has cycles we cannot control". And unfortunately you are quite correct. The planet has a way of doing what it pleases, as does the sun, the magnetosphere and other such cosmic entitities that dont really care what we do, and dont care when we die off.

However, it would be quite nice and thoughtful that if the natural destructive geoglacial cycles were to resume in a few thousand years from now, that we could at least not fuck things up BEFORE then? You know, focus on finding solutions to the problems that will hit us hard one day.



The irony. You say that science is benefitted by a skeptical view and that it is myopic to ignore the data. The data has not been ignored and the vast majority (even from companies like Exon in the 70's) understand that the climate is accelerating faster now than it has done for centuries and that humans are the 'likely' contributor to that model. Just because there are one or two outliers, does not make it a worthy debate.

Also, the EPICA graph has errors due to compaction of ice and CO2 being 'squeezed' out. Article here to explain:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

NASA (or is it the man ands this is all false news?)

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What Exxon knew.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Notably - they also spent millions to debunk the science. Obviously - it still has a knock on effect and many people still doubt the science because (like Bob Dole who claimed milk was a carcinogen just like tobacco) powerful American lobbies make the masses confused.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ge-deniers-even-exxon-s-ceo-has-abandoned-you

And it is so amusing that people think those ultra rich corporations who rely on the product which is at the forefront of the cause of warming are telling you the truth.

One fucking word for those that haven't learned the lesons of the past. Tobacco.

Oh I don't for a second believe that a corporation would tell a truth that doesn't fit their narrative. But that's also a good reason to be skeptical of global warming. There are plenty of people making lots of money off global warming scares.

My point isn't that we shouldn't fix a problem we are causing. My point is that the increase in temperatures we are experiencing fall perfectly in line with the natural cycles, therefore a causal relationship cannot be established.

The Epica graph is not the only one that shows the same temperature history. The article you cited doesn't say anything about errors in the temperature data, but rather casts into doubt on previous data that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, because it seems that the temperature drop happened before increases in CO2 levels.

The NASA data only shows CO2 levels, and makes the argument that CO2 levels result in higher temperatures without providing any temp data to compare to. Here, I'll help.

Doesn't look like that huge spike in CO2 did much of anything to the temperature. Note that the quick "swings" in temperature get more wild closer to the present because we have more, and more accurate measurements, not because the temperature swings are more violent. As you can see, around 130,000 before present, global temps were higher with a lower CO2 level.

And none of that "graph is too far out to show the anomaly." Both graphs are on the same scale, and you can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels at the beginning (present) of the graph. There simply is no corresponding jump in temperature outside of the norm.

 

[R-T-B]

You've seen enough global warming in the time you've lived on the planet...? So you've noticed >1 degree Celsius change in global average temperature over your lifetime?

Hell yes, but I'm in the pacific region where the el nino and el nina effects hammer us and we're the rough end of the average.

When I was a kid, the snowfall here was consistent and heavy in the winter. Now, we're lucky to get any.

Doesn't look like that huge spike in CO2 did much of anything to the temperature

Are we looking at the same graph? The CO2 spikes correspond directly to the temp peaks.

Look at it, man: