|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 22, 2016 19:15:15 GMT -5
"A group of scientists says it has now reconstructed the history of the planet’s sea levels arcing back over some 3,000 years — leading it to conclude that the rate of increase experienced in the 20th century was 'extremely likely' to have been faster than during nearly the entire period. 'We can say with 95 percent probability that the 20th-century rise was faster than any of the previous 27 centuries,” said Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who led the research with nine colleagues from several U.S. and global universities. Kopp said it’s not that seas rose faster before that – they probably didn’t – but merely that the ability to say as much with the same level confidence declines...
"Unsurprisingly, the study blames the anomalous 20th-century rise on global warming — and not just that. It also calculates that, had humans not been warming the planet, there’s very little chance that seas would have risen so much during the century, finding that instead of a 14 centimeter rise, we would have seen somewhere between a 3 centimeter fall and a 7 centimeter rise. The new work is particularly significant because, in effect, the sea level analysis produces a so-called 'hockey stick' graph — showing a long and relatively flat sea level 'handle' for thousands of years, followed by a 'blade' that turns sharply upwards in very recent times." link
Sunspots! Gravitational waves! Data errors! Commie conspiracy! Have we covered all the bases?
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Feb 23, 2016 17:01:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 23, 2016 17:44:07 GMT -5
Amazingly, BAB, even as the predictions of the past 15 or so years have come to pass, the denialistas continue to play ostrich. I guess they'll finally notice when all that's left of Manhattan is the upper floors of Freedom Tower.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Feb 24, 2016 1:00:25 GMT -5
Ostrich!?
I think that 3000 years is quite significant when dealing with a 4.5 - 5 billion year old rock.
In scope, it is kind of like the period in the last sentence of a Michener novel.
I live in a coastal flood zone, so you guys have certainly caught my attention with these latest calls.
Thanks!
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 24, 2016 7:34:36 GMT -5
I live in a coastal flood zone,
So, you've got your underwater home already, then?
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 9, 2016 19:19:27 GMT -5
See linky, I am not saying it is correct or that I agree with it but it does raise some questions. I just don't quite understand why data is "manipulated" - www.investors.com/politics/editorials/no-warming-for-58-years-what-the-government-is-hiding/"“In their ‘hottest year ever’ press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58-year-long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph,” says Real Science. Indeed, when temperature data going back to 1957 are attached to the front of the 1979-2015 trend line, a different story materializes. Temperatures fall from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, then rise and fall throughout the next half century."
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Mar 10, 2016 10:49:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 10, 2016 13:46:17 GMT -5
This is dumb. Also, repeal the ban on gun violence research while we're at it.
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 10, 2016 16:17:51 GMT -5
Interesting. Is there a law against being a climate change denier? How does Lynch plan to get around the 1st amendment in the country's constitution? Um maybe the DOJ should spend more time pursuing the law breakers in Washington (Hillary Clinton says hi) than this silliness...
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 10, 2016 19:41:36 GMT -5
So we have our country's top lawyer threatening to take legal action against climate change deniers and then I read this article that seems to change the whole climate change paradigm - it's NOT CO2 emissions but methane and nitrogen oxide that is the problem. What concerns me about this is that people jumped to rather quick conclusions about climate change and legislated a lot of changes. Did those changes make things better or worse? Do we REALLY understand climate change? See linky - www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0310/Climate-change-surprise-Biosphere-contributes-to-warming"Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) gets the most attention as the primary contributor to climate change, but methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (N2 O) round out the list of top three greenhouse gas emissions. And while the latter two are smaller in volume, they're much more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. So yes, the biosphere does continue to absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, but it is also producing much more methane and nitrous oxide than in pre-industrial times. “None of the previous studies put these three gases together,” says lead author Hanqin Tian of Auburn University to The Christian Science Monitor in a phone interview. “When we consider these three gases together, then we find methane and nitrous oxide together are two times larger than the sink carbon dioxide offers. In terms of global warming potential, methane and nitrogen oxide are way worse than carbon monoxide.” In all, the team concluded, human-driven methane and nitrous oxide production far outweighed the impact of human-driven carbon dioxide uptake. “In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change," says Stanford University’s Carnegie Institution in a press release."
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 10, 2016 23:20:21 GMT -5
That IBD piece is remarkably stupid. And that's about as much comment as it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 10, 2016 23:26:33 GMT -5
So we have our country's top lawyer threatening to take legal action against climate change deniers and then I read this article that seems to change the whole climate change paradigm - it's NOT CO2 emissions but methane and nitrogen oxide that is the problem... In all, the team concluded, human-driven methane and nitrous oxide production far outweighed the impact of human-driven carbon dioxide uptake. “In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change," says Stanford University’s Carnegie Institution in a press release." You're just now learning that there's more than one climate change agent? I mean, it's not as if there hasn't been several decades' worth of discussion about this. And that report does NOT say CO2 emissions are not a problem; it says methane and nitrogen oxide are even bigger problems. These are not equivalent statements. Please note the last paragraph in your own post, particularly this quotation: “In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change," Kind of refutes the claims of the IBD piece, no?
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 11, 2016 8:04:00 GMT -5
So we have our country's top lawyer threatening to take legal action against climate change deniers and then I read this article that seems to change the whole climate change paradigm - it's NOT CO2 emissions but methane and nitrogen oxide that is the problem... In all, the team concluded, human-driven methane and nitrous oxide production far outweighed the impact of human-driven carbon dioxide uptake. “In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change," says Stanford University’s Carnegie Institution in a press release." You're just now learning that there's more than one climate change agent? I mean, it's not as if there hasn't been several decades' worth of discussion about this. And that report does NOT say CO2 emissions are not a problem; it says methane and nitrogen oxide are even bigger problems. These are not equivalent statements. My point is do we really know what the changes being legislated are going to do? If as you say there is more than one climate change agent, what is being done/proposed to address the issue with methane and nitrogen oxide?Please note the last paragraph in your own post, particularly this quotation: “In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change," Kind of refutes the claims of the IBD piece, no? No it does not, how do you figure that?
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 11, 2016 8:47:11 GMT -5
That IBD piece is remarkably stupid. And that's about as much comment as it deserves. I agree, manipulating data is remarkably stupid.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Mar 11, 2016 9:29:49 GMT -5
I applaud you Brisco for making an attempt to empathize with the Global Warmist Coven.
It is hard enough to keep up with all the changing names - Global Warming to Climate Change to Manmade Climate Disruption?
Please just ignore the man behind the curtain and discard all rational thought. The changing & falsified data should also be ignored.
The entire concept must simply be allowed to morph into whatever allows the radical extremist left to destroy Capitalism and move towards a one world government.
As shown in this diagram, it is simply the natural evolution of progressive thinking.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 11, 2016 10:11:06 GMT -5
That IBD piece is remarkably stupid. And that's about as much comment as it deserves. I agree, manipulating data is remarkably stupid. Fixing data with still better data, however, is remarkably smart.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 11, 2016 10:21:44 GMT -5
You're just now learning that there's more than one climate change agent? I mean, it's not as if there hasn't been several decades' worth of discussion about this. And that report does NOT say CO2 emissions are not a problem; it says methane and nitrogen oxide are even bigger problems. These are not equivalent statements. My point is do we really know what the changes being legislated are going to do? If as you say there is more than one climate change agent, what is being done/proposed to address the issue with methane and nitrogen oxide?Please note the last paragraph in your own post, particularly this quotation: “In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change," Kind of refutes the claims of the IBD piece, no? No it does not, how do you figure that? 1 - Well, in a sense we never can know in advance what any change in law, regulation, or policy can lead to (Law of Unintended Consequences), which is why there's always value in researchers, journalists, and citizens' groups monitoring effects, and in government adjusting its actions to address any issues that arise. All policies work this way. But we don't refuse to address an issue merely because we cannot be 100 percent certain of the outcomes if specific actions are taken; that would mean failing to address identified problems at all, which usually is an even bigger risk than addressing them imperfectly. Regulations under the Clean Air Act cover all known greenhouse gasses, not just CO2: link. 2 - According to the IBD editorial: "the fuller story contradicts the man-made global warming narrative." That's the bottom line of that piece. The bottom line of your most recent post: "In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change." The data cannot simultaneously contradict and support AGW, so these two statements are in direct conflict.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 11, 2016 10:25:05 GMT -5
I never wear my glasses down on my nose like that, lol.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Mar 11, 2016 10:36:55 GMT -5
You deniers have a tremendous failure of logic and critical thinking when it comes to your all-the-researchers-are-pressured-to-toe-the-Climate-Change-party-line mantra, and it revolves around your ignorant assumption that the U.S. is the only country on earth to study Climate Change. Stop and think about something for a minute. Consider these three countries: Norway, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Norway is the world's fourth-richest country by GDP per capita. Most of its wealth comes from oil exports from their North Sea oil fields. Their annual revenue from oil exports is around $40 billion, a hell of a lot of money for a country with a population of 5 million people. In Russia, the oil-and-gas sector accounts for 16% of their GDP, 52% of their federal budget revenues, and over 70% of total exports. In Saudi Arabia, the petroleum sector accounts for roughly 80% of government budget revenues, 45% of GDP (which is about $750 billion per year), and 90% of export earnings. Now, it's indisputable that those three countries benefit tremendously from selling oil and certainly do not want their sales of oil to decrease. Russia and Saudi Arabia would be flat broke if oil sales disappeared. So think about how they would handle the matter of research into man-made Climate Change. If it was true that man-made Climate Change theory was false, they would invest billions of dollars into proving it was false, by proving that the man-made Climate Change adherents were completely wrong. Is there any chance at all that my logic above is faulty? Is there any chance at all that Norway, Russia, and Saudi Arabia would hesitate to go to incredible lengths to prove that man-made Climate Change theory was false if their science experts had even a suspicion that it was false? The answer is no, they wouldn't hesitate; they'd do whatever it takes to protect their source of income if they thought they had science on their side. You'd see research financed by them literally oozing out of every university and think tank on earth. Of course, you don't see such research financed by Norway, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 11, 2016 11:02:40 GMT -5
If it was true that man-made Climate Change theory was false, they would invest billions of dollars into proving it was false, by proving that the man-made Climate Change adherents were completely wrong. Of course, you don't see such research financed by Norway, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, do you? Actually, we can do better than that: "Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) supports the development of the REDD+ international agenda and architecture. The ICFI’s primary goal is to help establish a global, binding, long-term post-2012 regime that will ensure the necessary and sufficient cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature rises to no more than 2°C." link
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Mar 11, 2016 11:35:40 GMT -5
If it was true that man-made Climate Change theory was false, they would invest billions of dollars into proving it was false, by proving that the man-made Climate Change adherents were completely wrong. Of course, you don't see such research financed by Norway, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, do you? Actually, we can do better than that: "Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) supports the development of the REDD+ international agenda and architecture. The ICFI’s primary goal is to help establish a global, binding, long-term post-2012 regime that will ensure the necessary and sufficient cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature rises to no more than 2°C." linkWell, that's what the press release says .............. obviously, Al Gore has gotten to them.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 11, 2016 13:20:40 GMT -5
Well, that's what the press release says .............. obviously, Al Gore has gotten to them. Clever dastard, he!
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 11, 2016 15:43:26 GMT -5
I agree, manipulating data is remarkably stupid. Fixing data with still better data, however, is remarkably smart. They didn't fix data, they removed data altogether. Oh and look, when they do that the results fit their hypothesis better - what a coincidence! That is not science....
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 11, 2016 17:25:18 GMT -5
So you are a scientist? Explain to us how science works. While you do a crash course on scientific method, let me point out that the article you cited carefully limited its statement to the "radiosonde temperature record." That means balloons. But that's just one source of data on global warming, and a limited one, at that. Let's get a fuller picture: Global temperatures have been rising since 1880 at about the same rate as CO2 emissions: The sea level has been rising over the same period at a rate that comports with the data on rising temperatures:Upper-ocean sea temperatures have been rising since about 1970:The snow cover in the northern hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is found, has been retreating since at least 1966:And glacier volumes have been declining rapidly since at least 1960:Now, each of these indicators is consistent with global warming related to human activity releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. In fact, no one has found any other scientifically plausible explanation for these changes (e.g., sunspot frequency doesn't correlate with these indicators). So, while there always is some possibility that these correlations are simply random error, the odds on that are very low, something under 1 percent. Of course, you can continue to deny the most likely explanation, or simply remain skeptical one way or the other. But at some point data simply overwhelm both alternative theories and skepticism, and that's why more than 90 percent of atmospheric scientists believe AGW to be a fact.
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 11, 2016 19:48:12 GMT -5
So you are a scientist? Explain to us how science works. While you do a crash course on scientific method, let me point out that the article you cited carefully limited its statement to the "radiosonde temperature record." That means balloons. But that's just one source of data on global warming, and a limited one, at that. Let's get a fuller picture: Global temperatures have been rising since 1880 at about the same rate as CO2 emissions: The sea level has been rising over the same period at a rate that comports with the data on rising temperatures:Upper-ocean sea temperatures have been rising since about 1970:The snow cover in the northern hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is found, has been retreating since at least 1966:And glacier volumes have been declining rapidly since at least 1960:Now, each of these indicators is consistent with global warming related to human activity releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. In fact, no one has found any other scientifically plausible explanation for these changes (e.g., sunspot frequency doesn't correlate with these indicators). So, while there always is some possibility that these correlations are simply random error, the odds on that are very low, something under 1 percent. Of course, you can continue to deny the most likely explanation, or simply remain skeptical one way or the other. But at some point data simply overwhelm both alternative theories and skepticism, and that's why more than 90 percent of atmospheric scientists believe AGW to be a fact. Since methane and nitrogen oxide also contribute to global warming, how are they accounted for in the data you provided above?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 11, 2016 22:48:51 GMT -5
Since methane and nitrogen oxide also contribute to global warming, how are they accounted for in the data you provided above? *sigh* Just forget it. I give up.
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 12, 2016 6:54:46 GMT -5
Since methane and nitrogen oxide also contribute to global warming, how are they accounted for in the data you provided above? *sigh* Just forget it. I give up. Why? You yourself said there is more than one greenhouse gas, correct? The data you provided only shows one greenhouse gas - CO2, correct? Where is the data on the other gases? These are not difficult questions...
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 12, 2016 14:53:59 GMT -5
These are not difficult questions... It shouldn't be difficult, but somehow it's turning out to be. Let's start with the basics. One reason why so much attention is focused on CO2 is that it accounts for about 3/4 of all human-activity greenhouse gas emissions: linkThe biggest concern about methane (CH4) is that there's lots of it stored in the ground (e.g. under the Siberian permafrost), in polar ice, and in sea water. Rising temperatures eventually are expected to release huge amounts of it into the atmosphere, greatly adding to overall greenhouse gas content, and accelerating global warming. link None of this really is new information, and none of it means that CO2 emissions are not a (the?) major cause of AGW. The gases involved have additive and interactive effects, but it's not as if anyone is saying CO2 is not important to AGW.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Mar 12, 2016 15:23:39 GMT -5
Since methane and nitrogen oxide also contribute to global warming, how are they accounted for in the data you provided above? Have you contacted Norway, Russia and Saudi Arabia? They will be very relieved to learn that you have info that proves that man-made Climate Change theory is completely false. You might even get an all-expenses-paid trip to one of them, with a loved one.
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Mar 12, 2016 20:43:52 GMT -5
These are not difficult questions... It shouldn't be difficult, but somehow it's turning out to be. Let's start with the basics. One reason why so much attention is focused on CO2 is that it accounts for about 3/4 of all human-activity greenhouse gas emissions: linkThe biggest concern about methane (CH4) is that there's lots of it stored in the ground (e.g. under the Siberian permafrost), in polar ice, and in sea water. Rising temperatures eventually are expected to release huge amounts of it into the atmosphere, greatly adding to overall greenhouse gas content, and accelerating global warming. link None of this really is new information, and none of it means that CO2 emissions are not a (the?) major cause of AGW. The gases involved have additive and interactive effects, but it's not as if anyone is saying CO2 is not important to AGW. This is all great but I direct you back to the article I linked, in particular this statement - " In all, the team concluded, human-driven methane and nitrous oxide production far outweighed the impact of human-driven carbon dioxide uptake." This does not seem to correlate to your first statement that CO2 is and should be the focus, no? At the very least, it would seem that 2 key sources of climate change are not being studied much if at all, no? In other words, shouldn't we be studying the effect of all three gases?
|
|