[QUOTE=TH89;32393897]
Neither you nor I nor s0biet has the expertise to make an informed judgement on climate change or climate modelling (as much as he would like to imply the contrary). Therefore, the most reasonable thing to do is to assume that, given the strong consensus among people whose careers are based on making accurate predictions, that this prediction is PROBABLY accurate. Could they all be wrong? Of course. Is it likely? Not really. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to common sense.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TH89;32399491]It's really not, especially given that the vast majority of people who DID sign the petition aren't even climate scientists. They list "chemical engineers" (who aren't even scientists) as "chemists," which is a pretty big stretch. But even if they were all scientists they're still vastly, vastly outnumbered by people who believe the opposite. Unless you are a brilliant climatologist who has been reading all the papers being published and have some brilliant alternate explanation that nobody's thought of yet, you don't really have a legitimate reason to believe the skeptics over the rest of the scientific community.
[/QUOTE]
In some respects, you're right. In others, fallacious. However you are correct in that none of us are climate scientists. Some of us are, however, workers in other fields where the effects of such a radical change in economic policy might effect us in a huge way.
This makes us players in this debate, and the degree of certainty required differs from one individual or another.
Are you a climate scientist? No, you aren't, you said you weren't. Yet because of your ideology and your disdain for the people who "harm the planet", your time preferences are altered in the context of this debate. You don't want to wait until they've presented something where all the variables are checked, you want it to happen [i]right now[/i], as soon as possible.
However, there are those of us who aren't hired by the major evil polluters of the world who do have jobs which would be effected by the results of your suggestions who have different preferences. I for example, want all of the variables to be confirmed so that the economy isn't crippled for generations to come because some people opposite of me were overzealous and couldn't possibly wait for the facts as if they were some kind of Bush-era security adviser.
There's several gigantic holes in not just the science, but also your solutions to the problem.
For one thing, you think we can reasonably effect the climate through legislation, I'd advise you to take up rain dancing. This is not true to reality. You seem to bestow upon corporations and the government alike some sort of god-like ability to control the global temperature. I think this is silly.
The fact is, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to climate, the majority has been wrong in the past. I can't say conclusively that they are wrong now, nor can I say they're correct, but in the past there have been environmentalist scares which have over time been conclusively proven to be completely false. At least 3 major events by my count.
Just because superficially something seems plausible, doesn't mean it's correct.
I could, if I were so inclined (I'm not) show you dozens of charts pointing out anomalies in models used in predictions, that's one way to measure failure. Or, I could link you to some articles of prominent nobel prize winning scientists and physicists rejecting "man-made" warming.
I won't do that, you could be right, after all. Maybe there is something going on with the climate we're causing. The difference between us is, just because I hold an opinion that man isn't the cause of it, doesn't mean I want to stop green technology from being developed or setup 500 extra coal refineries because It's not a big deal.
You however, want to change things immediately without actual proof of anything.
[QUOTE=ReLak;32404460]why not? I'm certainly not against the idea that it isn't possible, and that you're treating me that I want an airtight theory. I want something that can, quote, accurately [b](within a fair margin mind)[/b] account for all data, I don't want every single fucking thing explained down to the most minute detail because that is unreasonable.
also attack writer, not data, win argument. (pro-tip: [url=http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf]read report linked in article[/url])[/QUOTE]
Hey holmes; that study is bullshit.
[QUOTE=The DooD;32409078]Eh, I do and don't believe in Global Warming. For the sake of my social status (which is bad enough already), if people ask me if I believe in Global Warming I just say yes to not come off as a dick, but really I'm still not sure about it.
But then again I'm not a scientist and I haven't actually made the research necessary to come to a conclusion for myself. The most I've done is read other peoples opinions, but on this matter in particular I trust no one.
I say I don't believe in Global Warming, but I do believe that the Earth goes through cold and hot spells, which as far as I know is to do with variables we can't control, such as the orbit of the Earth and what Sol is up to. Yes we release a lot of carbon into the environment, but as far as I know, it doesn't really have an effect. Carbon makes up a very small percentage of the atmosphere, compared to water vapour, so unless carbon has some ultra green house capabilities that water vapour doesn't, then I think it's out of our hands.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
Every time I hear an argument about Global Warming though, I always hear that more and more scientists now accept Global Warming as an actual fact, or in one article I read a while ago, it said that virtually all respectable scientists now believe in Global Warming.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
It seems like the new religion for atheists to me. If people won't believe in God, lets make them believe in something that could be proven, then make them fear it![/QUOTE]
This is just as bad as not believing in evolution.
Personally, I believe that global warming is a process that will occur whether we attempt to better our CO2 output or not.
[QUOTE=devcon;32413126]Personally, I believe that global warming is a process that will occur whether we attempt to better our CO2 output or not.[/QUOTE]
This is not just something you can have your own opinion on. Science is not a democracy.
But what are the facts, sp00ks?
Why don't we just call it anthropogenic climate change? Everyone agrees that the earth does it's natural thing but that's not the point. The point is the anthropogenic effects on global climate.
[QUOTE=OvB;32413858]Why don't we just call it anthropogenic climate change? Everyone agrees that the earth does it's natural thing but that's not the point. The point is the anthropogenic effects on global climate.[/QUOTE]
That at least makes it more clear what's supposed to be being discussed
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32413307]This is not just something you can have your own opinion on. Science is not a democracy.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, facepunch resident police. Let me expand the reasoning behind that formatting for you.
Global warming is one of the few things you can't really refute or argue against, and every person that has come in here and tried has been obliterated by the e-scientists.
It's been proven that earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling long before we had the capabilities to noticably change atmospheric conditions.
Therefore, we should at least be arguing about the mechanics behind the phenomenon instead of squabbling about syntax and making snide comments about peoples' sources and opinions.
[QUOTE=scotland1;32375541]Since when did people think it was a hoax?[/QUOTE]
You'd be surprised, if the government or big people say anything at all there will ALWAYS Be someone who disagrees
[u]always[/u]
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
I believe global warming is real, but the reality or not is not arguable, what is arguable is whether humans caused it or not (and to that I believe yes, we accelerated it happening)
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
In the end this is the natural way of things, animals not used to warmer climates will die, as that is what always has happened, the weaker less fit of animals have died out.
[QUOTE=The DooD;32413753]But what are the facts, sp00ks?[/QUOTE]
The ocean getting gradually more acidic since the beginning of the Industrial revolution due to CO2 uptake. A time when humans starting pumping CO2 into the atmosphere en mass.
[quote]An analysis of CO2 preserved in ice cores shows that for more than 600,000 years the ocean had a pH of approximately 8.2 (pH is the acidity of a solution measured on a 14-point scale, with a pH below 7 being acidic and above 7, basic). But since 1800, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of the ocean has dropped by 0.1 unit. That may not sound like much, but pH is a logarithmic scale, so the decline in fact represents a whopping 30 percent increase in acidity.[/quote]
[quote]by the end of the century could drop as low as 7.8, which would correspond to a 150 percent increase in acidity since preindustrial times. “A drop of that magnitude is more than we’ve seen in 20 million years,” says Richard A. Feely, supervisory oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “That’s going to profoundly change the ecology of the sea as we now know it, in ways that could potentially be devastating.”[/quote]
[url]http://marinelife.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=marinelife&cdn=education&tm=120&f=00&tt=12&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-ocean-acidification-a-global-case-of-osteoporosis[/url]
[QUOTE=petieng;32375589]It's a shame this is even still a debate. The scientific consensus is that it exists and humans have a significant role in it. When the evidence is so overwhelming, it's hard to justify opposing "opinions," or whether it's possible to even have an opinion on what is regarded as scientific truth.[/QUOTE]
"Hey guys, did you know that there are flying pigs living inside our anuses? The scientific consensus and the scientific EVIDENCE are IRREFOOTABLE !!"
How about you actually provide some of said evidence?
[QUOTE=OvB;32413981]The ocean getting gradually more acidic since the beginning of the Industrial revolution due to CO2 update. A time when humans starting pumping CO2 into the atmosphere en mass.
[url]http://marinelife.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=marinelife&cdn=education&tm=120&f=00&tt=12&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-ocean-acidification-a-global-case-of-osteoporosis[/url][/QUOTE]
There's literally a list of things, the acidity in oceans included, that contribute to global warming during the Industrial Revolution. Peppered moth being one of the largest. Either Global Warming is real or this is all an elaborate coincidence which is highly unlikely.
[QUOTE=Potanis;32407280]The things about global warming is [b]they don't have all that data[/b]. they have some convincing graphs and a few charts and theories, but they don't have what your asking. that's why it's and issue of whether or not it's a hoax.
If global warming alarmists had that kind of data, this thread wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE]
what do you mean they don't have the data? how do you think they actually made those graphs and theories?
Don't you ever wonder how you get your daily weather report? That's right, through satellite imagery and hundreds of thousands of weather stations worldwide. Do you think all of that data is there just so you know it'll be rainy tomorrow? No. All those petabytes of numbers get archived and crunched by supercomputers to make long-term predictions of what the climate will be X years in the future, taking into account our best theories of how ocean currents, winds, clouds and terrain alter the weather, not to mention historic records going back hundreds of years. Then we have bubbles of air trapped inside the ice in Antarctica, giving a perfect snapshot of what the climate was like thousands of years ago.
Scientists aren't just throwing darts at a graph and connecting the dots you know.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
Also can we please stop calling this "global warming"? It's "climate change" and always has been.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32414125]what do you mean they don't have the data? how do you think they actually made those graphs and theories?
Don't you ever wonder how you get your daily weather report? That's right, through satellite imagery and hundreds of thousands of weather stations worldwide. Do you think all of that data is there just so you know it'll be rainy tomorrow? No. All those petabytes of numbers get archived and crunched by supercomputers to make long-term predictions of what the climate will be X years in the future, taking into account our best theories of how ocean currents, winds, clouds and terrain alter the weather, not to mention historic records going back hundreds of years. Then we have bubbles of air trapped inside the ice in Antarctica, giving a perfect snapshot of what the climate was like thousands of years ago.
Scientists aren't just throwing darts at a graph and connecting the dots you know.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
Also can we please stop calling this "global warming"? It's "climate change" and always has been.[/QUOTE]
Fun Fact: We have the path and data of every hurricane since 1851.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/45LdQ.jpg[/img]
They use these to help predict the path of a hurricane. We can take say, every past hurricane within x degrees of the hurricane you want to track for that given month and get a good idea of where it might be heading. For example:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/uaGyy.gif[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/dUYOb.gif[/img]
Climate change is definitely real, Global Warming probably isn't.
[QUOTE=Mamok Zalku;32414242]Climate change is definitely real, Global Warming probably isn't.[/QUOTE]
What makes you say that?
i think its a hoax. how do you not know if this isnt part of earths life cyclical?
[QUOTE=LATTEH;32414319]i think its a hoax. how do you not know if this isnt part of earths life cyclical?[/QUOTE]
They look at historical records of temperatures and compare them to todays.
Long story short, there is a cycle where the temperature fluctuates regularly over however many years (I don't remember how many), but it's eclipsed by what we're doing.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32414299]What makes you say that?[/QUOTE]
I admit the Earth is heating up at an unnatural pace but doesn't the earth do that alot?
[QUOTE=Mamok Zalku;32414413]I admit the Earth is heating up at an unnatural pace but doesn't the earth do that alot?[/QUOTE]
It's the difference between a river that's dirty because it runs over a lot of loose soil and a river that's dirty because factories are dumping radioactive crap into it.
It's a completely different order of magnitude.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32414457]It's the difference between a river that's dirty because it runs over a lot of loose soil and a river that's dirty because factories are dumping radioactive crap into it.
It's a completely different order of magnitude.[/QUOTE]
I kinda agree with that. We're definitely contributing to something, but do we have any idea why it was happening in the past naturally?
[QUOTE=Mamok Zalku;32414532]I kinda agree with that. We're definitely contributing to something, but do we have any idea why it was happening in the past naturally?[/QUOTE]
There's the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation]El Niño[/url] for one thing. As for longer oscillations they're caused by things like cycles in the Sun's radiation output, changes in the Earth's magnetic field and changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
[QUOTE=LATTEH;32414319]i think its a hoax. how do you not know if this isnt part of earths life cyclical?[/QUOTE]
Because I listen to the climatologists and don't just make shit up.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32409520]There's several gigantic holes in not just the science, but also your solutions to the problem.[/QUOTE]
What? I haven't proposed any solutions to the problem.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32409520]For one thing, you think we can reasonably effect the climate through legislation, I'd advise you to take up rain dancing. This is not true to reality. You seem to bestow upon corporations and the government alike some sort of god-like ability to control the global temperature. I think this is silly.[/QUOTE]
That would be a good point, except I never said anything like that. Good job refuting imaginary me, I guess?
[QUOTE=s0beit;32409520]The fact is, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to climate, the majority has been wrong in the past. I can't say conclusively that they are wrong now, nor can I say they're correct, but in the past there have been environmentalist scares which have over time been conclusively proven to be completely false. At least 3 major events by my count.[/QUOTE]
I hope you're not talking about "global cooling," because unlike the current climate change, that was never supported by the scientific community. There's no comparison.
Also, scientists are right a lot more often than they are wrong. And as we go on, and models are further developed and refined, they are wrong less and less about less and less significant things. People like to pull the "scientists can be totally wrong!" as if there's another Oh-Shit-The-Earth-Is-Round discovery hiding around the corner. That's not how it works, except maybe in theoretical physics.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32409520]I could, if I were so inclined (I'm not) show you dozens of charts pointing out anomalies in models used in predictions, that's one way to measure failure. Or, I could link you to some articles of prominent nobel prize winning scientists and physicists rejecting "man-made" warming.[/QUOTE]
You could post as many as you want, and it wouldn't matter, because the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meterological Society, and pretty much every reputable scientific organization [i]on the planet[/i] have all issued statements endorsing the theory of human-caused climate change.
And as much as physicists like to think their field makes them experts on everything, they're really not qualified to ~disprove~ that theory either.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32409520]You however, want to change things immediately without actual proof of anything.[/QUOTE]
I think we've established that your standard for proof is way, way higher than mine (higher even than I would consider remotely reasonable, but that's for people reading this to decide). But humor me for a moment in assuming it's true.
If someone is strongly, strongly suspected of being involved in a terrorist plot to kill hundreds of innocent people, do we let them run around freely until we are able to successfully convict them? Of course not; by the time we do they'll probably have blown up a bunch of buildings and will probably blow up some more before we can catch them. Waiting until we've determined we have absolute proof means waiting until we can no longer do anything substantive. I'm sure you don't expect the people who accept the scientific consensus to go for [i]that[/i].
"Well wait, for one thing," I hear you saying, "jailing a suspected terrorist has no negative repercussions, whereas, say, legislating against greenhouse gas emissions (oops now I said it) could do serious damage to the economy." And believe me, I'm not trying to dismiss that out of hand. I'm not a pie-in-the-sky liberal who thinks the only reason not to enact more regulations is because ~the corporations control the government maaan~.
BUT the predicted damage to ecosystems we rely on for food and other resources has the potential to destroy entire industries. That's going to be far worse for the economy in the long run, and that's not even getting into the human cost in third-world countries that aren't equipped to deal with floods, droughts, and food shortages.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-europe-oceans-climate-idUSTRE78C5T720110913[/url]
[QUOTE=TH89;32415701]I hope you're not talking about "global cooling," because unlike the current climate change, that was never supported by the scientific community. There's no comparison.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;EU_AtHkB4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms[/video]
If anyone is interested.
huh what happened to media tags
oh it's [video] nevermind
[QUOTE=Mamok Zalku;32414242]Climate change is definitely real, Global Warming probably isn't.[/QUOTE] You understand its usually used interchangeably right? You mean you believe the climate is changing but not in a way that will cause a difference in global temperature?
[release]BOULDER, Colorado -- The planet's deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the "missing heat" during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.
"We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future," says NCAR's Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study. "However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line."
The research, by scientists at NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, will be published online on September 18 in Nature Climate Change. Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, and the Department of Energy.
Where the missing heat goes
The 2000s were Earth's warmest decade in more than a century of weather records. However, the single-year mark for warmest global temperature, which had been set in 1998, remained unmatched until 2010.
Yet emissions of greenhouse gases continued to climb during the 2000s, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased. This implied that heat was building up somewhere on Earth, according to a 2010 study published in Science by NCAR researchers Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.
The two scientists, who are coauthors on the new study, suggested that the oceans might be storing some of the heat that would otherwise go toward other processes, such as warming the atmosphere or land, or melting more ice and snow. Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.
To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model's ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.
The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.
During these hiatus periods, simulations showed that extra energy entered the oceans, with deeper layers absorbing a disproportionate amount of heat due to changes in oceanic circulation. The vast area of ocean below about 1,000 feet (300 meters) warmed by 18% to 19% more during hiatus periods than at other times. In contrast, the shallower global ocean above 1,000 feet warmed by 60% less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation.
"This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean," Trenberth says. "The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences."
A pattern like La Niña
The simulations also indicated that the oceanic warming during hiatus periods has a regional signature. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes, especially around 30°S and 30°N in the Pacific and between 35°N and 40°N in the Atlantic, where surface waters converge to push heat into deeper oceanic layers.
These patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event, according to Meehl. He adds that El Niño and La Niña events can be overlaid on top of a hiatus-related pattern. Global temperatures tend to drop slightly during La Niña, as cooler waters reach the surface of the tropical Pacific, and they rise slightly during El Niño, when those waters are warmer.
"The main hiatus in observed warming has corresponded with La Niña conditions, which is consistent with the simulations," Trenberth says.
The simulations were part of NCAR's contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). They were run on supercomputers at NCAR's National Science Foundation-supported Climate Simulation Laboratory, and on supercomputers at Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, both supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy.[/release]
[url]http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=59302108647[/url]
What do you guys make of this?
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
Also, when I was a kid I thought it was Global Warning until I saw it written out. Warming made a lot more sense.
[QUOTE=OvB;32416830]
[url]http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=59302108647[/url]
What do you guys make of this?[/QUOTE]
Interesting. It'd be nice if the article gave some kind of perspective on what this means for sea life, even if that wasn't the focus of the study.
Hard to say. It's below coral reefs so the only thing that would really be effected by any increase in temperature at that depth would be pelagic fishes, whales and maybe some plankton, though phytoplankton stick to the surface for sunlight. All depends on how much the temperature increases.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.