Antarctica Conumdrum

[Knowing]

The observed temperatures are within the error bounds of basically all the IPCC predictions since 1990. Not sure where you are getting your information.

Great you successfully used a composite material in place of steel. Unless you did destrcutive testing on a sample of the material you actually used you used a bulk approximation of the properties of the material which for your use was a useful approximation.

The same goes for the consensus climate predictions. They have been and are accurate enough to make useful predictions for the development of political policy.

You do know the underlying science is based on conservation of energy. You do believe conservation of energy is settled science?

We did do destructive testing. When the composite was pushed beyond plasticity there was a crack like thunder, which was probably as much a function of being in the basement as destroying a very stiff piece of composite sandwich. Sadly I'm not sure where I saved the video. All in all when we finished, the chassis weighed about 50lbs without the roll hoop and extrapolating from our data could have supported hanging a modern sedan off of a cliff.



So, how many degrees are in a standard deviation from the mean?

Good enough for politics probably isn't a standard that you want to apply, a world where our wise political overlords were scientists would be a comical dystopia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY1mAlFjJTw

 

[Newell Steamer]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...a-ice-global-warming-climate-change/75155630/

Scambos said that the first study is more of a short-term look at what's happening today and over the next couple decades in Antarctica, while the other is looking long-term at what will happen over centuries or even millennia if the planet continues to warm.

Additionally, he also questioned the methodology of the first study, saying that the claim of thickening ice in some portions of Antarctica could be based on incomplete data.

Overall, the long-term trend is what's most alarming: "It is clear that further greenhouse-gas emission will heighten the risk of an ice collapse in West Antarctica and more unstoppable sea-level rise," said co-author and sea-level expert Anders Levermann, also from the Potsdam Institute.

"It might be something to worry about, because it would destroy our future heritage by consuming the cities we live in — unless we reduce carbon emission quickly."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You really, really have to read your source before posting about it 'cause it does not backup your conclusions OP.

You really, really need to be more specific.

 

[Paratus]

We did do destructive testing. When the composite was pushed beyond plasticity there was a crack like thunder, which was probably as much a function of being in the basement as destroying a very stiff piece of composite sandwich. Sadly I'm not sure where I saved the video. All in all when we finished, the chassis weighed about 50lbs without the roll hoop and extrapolating from our data could have supported hanging a modern sedan off of a cliff.



So, how many degrees are in a standard deviation from the mean?

Good enough for politics probably isn't a standard that you want to apply, a world where our wise political overlords were scientists would be a comical dystopia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY1mAlFjJTw

Yes it's very loud when the sample snaps in the basement especially if there wasn't much plastic deformation.

The equivalent of your testing for climate change models is hindcasting.

Figure SPM.4. Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using either natural or both natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906-2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for the period 1901-1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded bands show the 5 to 95% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded bands show the 5 to 95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings. {Figure 2.5}

Look, if you have some questions on the science behind it I suggest reading through this site:

American Chemical Society Climate Toolbox

It's long but covers all science.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...a-ice-global-warming-climate-change/75155630/

Another thread, another month closer to swimming New Yorkers. How's that legislative plan working out for you? Have you taken away cars and heating oil from the poor yet, or are you still not serious about this "climate change" angle?

 

[fskimospy]

Another thread, another month closer to swimming New Yorkers. How's that legislative plan working out for you? Have you taken away cars and heating oil from the poor yet, or are you still not serious about this "climate change" angle?

You mean until we come and kick you out? Haha.

By the way, NYC is one of the most energy efficient cities in the US, so we are way ahead of you on that one. Aren't you happy??

 

[glenn1]

You mean until we come and kick you out? Haha.

By the way, NYC is one of the most energy efficient cities in the US, so we are way ahead of you on that one. Aren't you happy??

Again, wake me up when you guys are ready to do anything worthwhile. You'd lose catastrophically at the polls if you attempted to reintroduce carbon taxes and would probably be lynched if you recommended the actions that would likely be required like banning cars or forcing people out of suburbs into cities. Until then you're just annoying "world is ending" sidewalk prophets akin to the right wing's "America's moral foundations are being compromised" whiners. Your biggest "accomplishments" of the last few decades are failed Kyoto, unrealistic CAFE standards and hundreds of flame war threads on ATPN and other message boards.

 

[DrPizza]

Again, wake me up when you guys are ready to do anything worthwhile. You'd lose catastrophically at the polls if you attempted to reintroduce carbon taxes and would probably be lynched if you recommended the actions that would likely be required like banning cars or forcing people out of suburbs into cities. Until then you're just annoying "world is ending" sidewalk prophets akin to the right wing's "America's moral foundations are being compromised" whiners. Your biggest "accomplishments" of the last few decades are failed Kyoto, unrealistic CAFE standards and hundreds of flame war threads on ATPN and other message boards.

Glad to see you know exactly what steps are absolutely necessary to resolve global warming. There aren't any alternatives that might work, are there? Increased solar energy - electric vehicles, modern nuclear plants, etc.?

 

[glenn1]

Glad to see you know exactly what steps are absolutely necessary to resolve global warming. There aren't any alternatives that might work, are there? Increased solar energy - electric vehicles, modern nuclear plants, etc.?

I'm fine if those "resolve global warming" if they do so on their own merits rather than by government coercion. Having the government not forcibly intervene on solar's behalf over the last 40 years is the primary reason it's been able to achieve technological maturity since and become competitive with fossil fuels in some (but not all or even most) use cases. If we'd given in to the demands of Al Gore and company all we would have done is made ourselves much poorer and locked ourselves into 1970s technology status quo while enabling their grandest authoritarian dreams.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm fine if those "resolve global warming" if they do so on their own merits rather than by government coercion. Having the government not forcibly intervene on solar's behalf over the last 40 years is the primary reason it's been able to achieve technological maturity since and become competitive with fossil fuels in some (but not all or even most) use cases. If we'd given in to the demands of Al Gore and company all we would have done is made ourselves much poorer and locked ourselves into 1970s technology status quo while enabling their grandest authoritarian dreams.

I like how you want solar and other carbon neutral power sources to become cost competitive with fossil fuels as if fossil fuels don't enjoy the absolutely huge subsidy from the negative externalities they inflict on the rest of society.

As a free market enthusiast you should be a huge fan of taxing fossil fuels in order to remove this subsidy. Then let's see who's cost competitive, haha.

 

[dainthomas]

I like how you want solar and other carbon neutral power sources to become cost competitive with fossil fuels as if fossil fuels don't enjoy the absolutely huge subsidy from the negative externalities they inflict on the rest of society.

As a free market enthusiast you should be a huge fan of taxing fossil fuels in order to remove this subsidy. Then let's see who's cost competitive, haha.

You mean negative externalities like allowing society to exist?

If we never started using fossil fuels and we'd still be stuck with 18th century technology.

 

[fskimospy]

You mean negative externalities like allowing society to exist?

If we never started using fossil fuels and we'd still be stuck with 18th century technology.

No, negative externalities like air pollution. It's basically the textbook example. Use of fossil fuels harms our environment, but neither the person generating the power or the person using the power pay for the damage they cause.

Why would you think the answer to negative externalities is to simply not use the technology instead of taxing or regulating the transactions to account for the negative externality?

 

[dainthomas]

No, negative externalities like air pollution. It's basically the textbook example. Use of fossil fuels harms our environment, but neither the person generating the power or the person using the power pay for the damage they cause.

Why would you think the answer to negative externalities is to simply not use the technology instead of taxing or regulating the transactions to account for the negative externality?

Because positive externalities outweigh the negatives.

 

[fskimospy]

Because positive externalities outweigh the negatives.

Haha, now that's a new one. You're going to have to help me out here: what benefits accrue to third parties from the burning of fossil fuels?

 

[buckshot24]

Because positive externalities outweigh the negatives.

QFT

 

[glenn1]

Haha, now that's a new one. You're going to have to help me out here: what benefits accrue to third parties from the burning of fossil fuels?

How about the ability to have the materials and energy to produce those non-fossil fuel sources to begin with? Plus you can't cite the environmental externalities of fossil fuels and ignore the same externalities for solar and other alternative sources. Plus until energy storage solutions mature more fully you're not actually removing fossil fuels from the mix, you're just creating a need for a peak power fossil fuel fired plant to go along with your renewable.

 

[buckshot24]

Dead birds aren't a negative externality I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

How about the ability to have the materials and energy to produce those non-fossil fuel sources to begin with?

That's a positive effect of electricity generation, not of burning fossil fuels. You can generate electricity in plenty of ways that aren't fossil fuel based, and of course we do.

Plus you can't cite the environmental externalities of fossil fuels and ignore the same externalities for solar and other alternative sources. Plus until energy storage solutions mature more fully you're not actually removing fossil fuels from the mix, you're just creating a need for a peak power fossil fuel fired plant to go along with your renewable.

Nobody is trying to ignore those externalities. Also, that image is stupid. With renewable power you will still have other generators, but you'll have fewer of them and they will run less often, which is of course the whole point. Whoever made that image is either stupid or trying to dupe people.

 

[glenn1]

Dead birds aren't a negative externality I guess.

Nor are people being priced out of being able to purchase energy. My carbon reduction is your inability to afford driving to work and becoming unemployed.

 

[fskimospy]

Dead birds aren't a negative externality I guess.

They are, it's just that it's a very very small negative externality. They kill somewhere around 300,000 birds annually, which is about 5% of what cell towers kill and less than 1% of what cats kill.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...l-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/

Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.

Climate change caused by fossil fuels threatens bird populations far more seriously than wind turbines do as well, so we better pile on a bunch of bird deaths to fossil fuel generation too, huh?

Yet many environmentalists say wind power ultimately benefits birds. It is a "a growing solution to some of the more serious threats that birds face, since wind energy emits no greenhouse gases that accelerate climate change," Terry Root of Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, said in a statement accompanying the study's release.

Earlier this month, a National Audubon Society report said that hundreds of bird species in the U.S. — including the bald eagle and eight state birds, from Idaho to Maryland — are at "serious risk" due to climate change. It said some species are forecast to lose more than 95% of their current ranges.

 

[glenn1]

They are, it's just that it's a very very small negative externality. They kill somewhere around 300,000 birds annually, which is about 5% of what cell towers kill and less than 1% of what cats kill.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...l-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/

Climate change caused by fossil fuels threatens bird populations far more seriously than wind turbines do as well, so we better pile on a bunch of bird deaths to fossil fuel generation too, huh?

Sure thing guy. Your side would be dangerous if you weren't so inept at getting your dumb ideas implemented. Thankfully the world has ignored you the last few decades, and your net influence on 'carbon emissions' and your other metrics is negligible. Hell, carbon emissions have basically gone parabolic while you guys were playing Chicken Little. If anything your stupid ideas have probably held back alternative energy by years if not a decade or more.

 

[K1052]

All this concern about birds affected by wind turbines from the coal burning crowd is really touching.

Entirely disingenuous but touching.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yeah I was just going to post that these people dont actually give 2 shits about birds being killed.

At anyrate they are working on what colors they can make the turbines to stop birds from flying into them.

 

[K7SN]

More wisdom

Glad to see you know exactly what steps are absolutely necessary to resolve global warming. There aren't any alternatives that might work, are there? Increased solar energy - electric vehicles, modern nuclear plants, etc.?

+1 emphasis added above. Good insight. There is an alternative however; while we spin our wheels or lack of same, we allow the earth time to compensate; trouble is it may take a millennia or more during which time we will still get warmer.

The equivalent of your testing for climate change models is hindcasting.

Isn't any form of decadal modeling climate changes hindcasting flawed; unless it holds true for say any decade in the last 200 years?

Look, if you have some questions on the science behind it I suggest reading through this site:

American Chemical Society Climate Toolbox

It's long but covers all science.

It is a long read; spent over 6 hours perusing it. It is a far better source than most but the sections were written by different people and some do conflict.

Below are a few random challengeable parts I found and will contact ACS about.

The figure shows Antarctic ice core data that span the time from the end of the last glacial period to the beginning of the present era. For our purposes, we need the initial and final concentrations of CO2 and CH4, and the average global temperature change.

Using the last 11,700 years is a flawed premise unless the fact that similar increases in CO2 and CH4, have occurred during last 2,5 million years also tied to the ending of a inter-Pleistocene glacial periods are somehow discounted; otherwise it is flawed scientific method. Flawed method = find the facts that support and ignore the others; proper method = find the facts, address similar facts which validate other conclusions and then draw a conclusion based on the uniqueness or your premises.

For this test, we assume, that radiative forcing by these gases is the only external forcing on the climate system.

Since much of the rest of the Climate Toolbox painstakingly identifies both positive and negative forcing, talks of how balance is achieved and is good methodology; the validity of this graph is questionable; many other parts of the Toolbox are not so easily invalided. You know what they say about Ass-u-me,
any one who believes greenhouse gases are "...the only external forcing on the climate system" is ignorant of numerous other climate change mechanisms.

(The detailed time course of the changes is interesting and can be correlated with changes that are evident in other geological records from this time span, but are not relevant for our calculation.)

Why are they not relevant? Not relevant because author (s) were lazy, not relevant because author(s) failed to follow proper methodology and had a conclusion before the author analyzed the premises or not relevant because they might introduce other unstudied climate mechanisms that question the conclusion. This is like saying it is not relevant that the oceans are rising because one (OPs) decadal study found in one area of this world evidence suggest to the contrary for an geologically instance of time.

Attaining the new energy balance involves some processes that are relatively rapid, taking place on a decadal time scale, and others that are slower, taking centuries, millennia, or longer to reach the balance.

These slower processes appear to be more negative forcing as levels approach maximum for this current chaotic state and more positive forcing when levels approach minimum.

Human activity has increased the atmospheric level of CO2 in this system to levels unprecedented in at least a million years and done so essentially instantaneously on a geological time scale.

The emphasized part above is just a falsehood; levels were a tad bit higher 150,000 (Age of Homo sapiens). 300.000. 450,000, ... age of other Homo species) Probably just an exaggeration because if they said 100,000 years, which is a valid statement, more would question if man alone was causal.

The ACS Climate Toolbox fails to adequately address the role of marine biological chemistry which impounds both CO2 and CH4 but not at a decadal, even millennial timeframe. If fails to address a possible correlation between increased temperature and increased volcanism; perhaps we help open the mantle with increased pressure (if volume remains constant and temperature increases) How much is attributable to atmospheric pressure, oceanic pressure (Higher the ocean more pressure at the bottom) or happenstance is not clear. Given the shortcomings it is still a refreshing scientific look at climate change.

 

[OutHouse]

True Democrats view, always doom and gloom lol