oh sorry, i just remember people yelling that there's a consensus on the matter of MMGW/ACC so i just figured you didn't much give a fuck about science since you know... you were all about the consensus.
oh sorry, i just remember people yelling that there's a consensus on the matter of MMGW/ACC so i just figured you didn't much give a fuck about science since you know... you were all about the consensus.
You need to cite a source for such claims. Otherwise, these are the facts currently in evidence-
http://www.ev.com/knowledge-center/carbon-co2-critical-350.html
Disagree with the conclusions if you choose, but not with the data.
and there are points in there that show higher concentrations of CO2 than currently. also 400,000 years is quite a small amount of time considering how long our planet has been going through changes. got any data that goes back further? 400k years vs the tens of millions of years our planet has sustained life is kind of lols imo and goes back to the point of NOT ENOUGH DATA
cool, I wonder what sort of effect that will have on climate models. Big or small change? What direction will it move them?
as for the MMGW debate. It's simple
Have we raised the CO2 levels a significant amount, when we look at our current society and levels we are used to? Yes we have.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes a rise in temperature. How much exactly, that is what people are researching to find out.
Has the climate been radically different in the past? yes, of course it has. The cause will be different depending on what happened at that time. This does NOT mean that we aren't the ones causing the changes today.
Just because climate in the past has been very different today does not mean it would be good for us today. We don't want changes because we have built our society so that it wouldn't deal well with radical changes. Even small changes can cause massive problems. So it's not bad for the earth for things to change, it's bad for us.
If we do finally understand out the climate works exactly we may be able to change our climate to suit us. Instead of being at the mercy of nature, actually make it work for us. So I hope the research continues.
as for the MMGW debate. It's simple
Have we raised the CO2 levels a significant amount, when we look at our current society and levels we are used to? Yes we have.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes a rise in temperature. How much exactly, that is what people are researching to find out.
Has the climate been radically different in the past? yes, of course it has. The cause will be different depending on what happened at that time. This does NOT mean that we aren't the ones causing the changes today.
Just because climate in the past has been very different today does not mean it would be good for us today. We don't want changes because we have built our society so that it wouldn't deal well with radical changes. Even small changes can cause massive problems. So it's not bad for the earth for things to change, it's bad for us.
If we do finally understand out the climate works exactly we may be able to change our climate to suit us. Instead of being at the mercy of nature, actually make it work for us. So I hope the research continues.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
So, as a physics guy, I tend to lean towards the Freeman Dyson camp in that the models that are out there are complete BS and can be made to show anything, hence they can't be used to causally link the correlated CO2 and temperature increases.
If you actually go to the Nature website, you can read the story for free (paper costs money unless you have academic access). The author of the paper is a typical physicist, reserved in his analysis and cautionary when making predictions.
Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.
So as of now, the first step of a three step process has been confirmed. The next two steps are still up in the air. If the next two actually occur (and it is entirely plausible that they may), then the MMGW models have some serious freaking problems.
But that's all beside the point as computer models can be so stupidly sensitive to the tiniest variables. I've written some physics simulations and if you don't get everything just right, everything goes to hell in a hand basket.
If you actually go to the Nature website, you can read the story for free (paper costs money unless you have academic access). The author of the paper is a typical physicist, reserved in his analysis and cautionary when making predictions.
Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.
So as of now, the first step of a three step process has been confirmed. The next two steps are still up in the air. If the next two actually occur (and it is entirely plausible that they may), then the MMGW models have some serious freaking problems.
But that's all beside the point as computer models can be so stupidly sensitive to the tiniest variables. I've written some physics simulations and if you don't get everything just right, everything goes to hell in a hand basket.
the earth and a green house are different, similar sure, but very very very very different. it is very simple minded to compare the two the way you are. like a bike compared to a space shuttle.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Listen, you fvcking moron, the current study is agnostic with respect to MMCC. Can you really fail to understand that when a report says "X has an effect on climate" that is NOT a statement that "Y does not have an effect on climate?"
And just consider your intellectual dishonesty: According to you, there's insufficient data to conclude that MMCC is real and significant. In other words, climate scientists are idiots. But now you're presented with another scientific study, that (you think) undermines MMCC, and you're falling all over yourself convinced it's gospel truth and proof positive the MMCC is false. In other words, THESE scientists are brilliant.
lols? i never denied any of the bs claims you guys are claiming, i'm saying we don't know yet. when studies like this come out, they prove my point. i have been saying every time something new comes up, if we knew wtf was up nothing new would come up, but we keep making new discoveries on how things have an affect on our climate. so this makes me believe, the people who are making all of the models and projections(which have yet to be right, point me to one that was done 10+ years ago that's correct) have no fucking clue what they're talking about YET. so i'm not going to take the WILD claims they make as anything more than that, WILD CLAIMS.
if you're going to throw a fucking label at me at least use one with a more proper definition like SKEPTIC.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Nonsense. You're the one making wild, unsubstantiated claims. How else does one explain an ignorant non-scientist claiming that well-informed scientists know less that he does about data sufficiency.
You're an idiot, not a skeptic.
I am definitely an idiot, no doubt there, but for some reason you're in complete denial yourself. Please, I'm making wild claims? These fools just proved that goddamn one of the bazillion things going on in our Universe that doesn't include shit just going on in our planet has an affect on our climate and I'm supposed to believe they have enough data points to accurately predict how it's going to be in the future if we don't change things? Come on...
Lets not forget I asked you to give me the models from 10 years ago that you guys were using to show us this bleak picture of our future if we don't get off hydrocarbons TOMORROW that have got anything right. Show it to me, I want to see them. Where did someone at the turn of the millennium did someone forecast our current climate? I haven't seen it, no one has been able to cough one up every time I ask. You guys just link me the newest and greatest research from the people who weren't able to predict the shit from the time I asked you to. I just haven't been asking for these recently either. Go through my post history you'll see posts from a year ago asking the same question and no one able to cough up a goddamn thing.
And I'm the one making the wild claims.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,864
- 31,359
- 146
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,864
- 31,359
- 146
i punched myself in the dick for not getting that reference. would you accept an apology? i've been in a rather sour mood today due to some abdominal pain.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,805
- 10,100
- 136
You pretend to refute the truth?
Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively.
As an example of this:
When you present a graph, you must present the LINK it came from.
Perknose
Forum Director
-------------------------
Well if you must know I did a google search for the data, as I had seen it before.
More than that, I've already a direct link to the paper this CO2 data originates from.
Last edited:
wow
just wow
at least 'some' of PJ's comments on this make a little bit of sense....
but bfdd and Jaskalas - holy crap
I'll try to cover a few things.
First off - people that believe man is impacting the earth's climate are not 'alarmists'.
FearNoEvil - tell me again what's wrong with reducing pollution, greatly lowering our dependence on foreign oil, and, potentially, lessening our impact on the climate? I'll agree with you that stuff like 'carbon credits' are a pile of shit - but that doesn't mean the science being discussed is wrong.
Bfdd - I don't even know where to start with you. Let's try your take on CO2 - it's all natural, it's been higher before, blah blah blah.
"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2."
PJ - your volcano claim is also BS: "The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere."
Jaskalas - there is so much fail in your last post I can't even cover them all, but I'll try
You said " CO2 is a non issue, it has been higher in the thousands PPM before, and it's a required part of life."
Duh - no one argues it's not needed. However, the 'it's been higher' before part - yes, it's been higher - 15 to 20 MILLION YEARS AGO. You are clearly, whether you recognize it or not, using Ian Plimer's book 'Heaven and Earth' as the source for much of your 'talking points as to why this isn't happening' However, you have failed to read any of the rebuttals against his points, which are all over the place.
You are not a scientist, period. Let the science discussions and hacked-graphs that you pull out of your ass stay where they belong. You want to sound like you know what you are talking about, but you are spouting the same 10 'talking points' BS every time there is a GW thread.
Enough already. Now you don't even admit that things are still getting warmer? This basic concept is mind-numbingly stupid. If you start your temperature graph at 1998, then yes, that short 13 year trend hasn't reached that peak again. However, start your graph back another 20-30 years, heck, even 100 years, and the temperature trend is so clear that elementary school kids can correctly interpret it.
Even the morons in our political world - like Gov Perry - who clearly thinks science is 'icky', acknowledges that it's getting warmer globally. If you want to argue about what is causing that - at least there is still some room - as bfdd points out every other sentence - that climate is so complex we don't understand every facet of it - but you and a very small group of people even deny the warming is taking place - and with that - you fail completely at being qualified to discuss any of this - despite reposting links to bad articles you read on whatever shady websites you frequent.
just wow
at least 'some' of PJ's comments on this make a little bit of sense....
but bfdd and Jaskalas - holy crap
I'll try to cover a few things.
First off - people that believe man is impacting the earth's climate are not 'alarmists'.
FearNoEvil - tell me again what's wrong with reducing pollution, greatly lowering our dependence on foreign oil, and, potentially, lessening our impact on the climate? I'll agree with you that stuff like 'carbon credits' are a pile of shit - but that doesn't mean the science being discussed is wrong.
Bfdd - I don't even know where to start with you. Let's try your take on CO2 - it's all natural, it's been higher before, blah blah blah.
"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2."
PJ - your volcano claim is also BS: "The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere."
Jaskalas - there is so much fail in your last post I can't even cover them all, but I'll try
You said " CO2 is a non issue, it has been higher in the thousands PPM before, and it's a required part of life."
Duh - no one argues it's not needed. However, the 'it's been higher' before part - yes, it's been higher - 15 to 20 MILLION YEARS AGO. You are clearly, whether you recognize it or not, using Ian Plimer's book 'Heaven and Earth' as the source for much of your 'talking points as to why this isn't happening' However, you have failed to read any of the rebuttals against his points, which are all over the place.
You are not a scientist, period. Let the science discussions and hacked-graphs that you pull out of your ass stay where they belong. You want to sound like you know what you are talking about, but you are spouting the same 10 'talking points' BS every time there is a GW thread.
Enough already. Now you don't even admit that things are still getting warmer? This basic concept is mind-numbingly stupid. If you start your temperature graph at 1998, then yes, that short 13 year trend hasn't reached that peak again. However, start your graph back another 20-30 years, heck, even 100 years, and the temperature trend is so clear that elementary school kids can correctly interpret it.
Even the morons in our political world - like Gov Perry - who clearly thinks science is 'icky', acknowledges that it's getting warmer globally. If you want to argue about what is causing that - at least there is still some room - as bfdd points out every other sentence - that climate is so complex we don't understand every facet of it - but you and a very small group of people even deny the warming is taking place - and with that - you fail completely at being qualified to discuss any of this - despite reposting links to bad articles you read on whatever shady websites you frequent.
You pretend to refute the truth?
Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively.
As an example of this:
Spiffy graph- With no documentation in support that I can find, no real source beyond a climate change denier reference. Where did it come from?
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
What you're all doing is essentially arguing about whether to rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic or to leave them where they are. Your entire discussion is wholly beside the point.
FACT: The climate for any given region of the world HAS changed in the past and WILL continue to change in the future.
FACT: Climate changes have happened faster and slower throughout history, even before the industrial age.
You're all arguing about whether or not we're causing climate change or whether or not we're accelerating it... when what you should be talking about is how are we going to adapt to the changes that are happening now and will happen in the future, whether or not we have any influence on them?
It's not about whether we're doing anything to cause/accelerate change, it's about are we prepared for the changes themselves.
FACT: The climate for any given region of the world HAS changed in the past and WILL continue to change in the future.
FACT: Climate changes have happened faster and slower throughout history, even before the industrial age.
You're all arguing about whether or not we're causing climate change or whether or not we're accelerating it... when what you should be talking about is how are we going to adapt to the changes that are happening now and will happen in the future, whether or not we have any influence on them?
It's not about whether we're doing anything to cause/accelerate change, it's about are we prepared for the changes themselves.
Last edited:
Nothing is wrong with any of those things, and I support those goals. The issue is that there is a significant cost associated with pursuing them, depending on how they are pursued. That's where the rubber meets the road. Just about everyone can agree on those goals, but finding an agreement on how to go about it -- and at what cost -- is the problem.
That's very true, but unfortunately, what isn't so easy to do is to figure out what we (as humans) can and should do about it. Blindly "doing something" to fix a problem without understanding it is stupid. Research like that done at CERN just demonstrates that there are significant limits to our understanding of the complete picture, which makes it that much more difficult to come up with good solutions.
Yep, that's true as well. We should really be considering both aspects; how to deal with the changes that are coming (regardless of whether we're causing them or not), and how we might be able to reduce the impacts.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
You assume that the impacts are negative and are to be avoided. Isn't the earth better off when there is a carbon-rich atmosphere and warmer temperatures?
It's not that I assume that impacts are negative, but rather than I think rapid changes are negative. Change will always happen, and organisms will adapt to that change given time. When the changes happen quickly, organisms don't get a chance to react and you end up with major potential problems. If there are realistic ways to slow down the rate of change, then it would be good to evaluate them.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
That's about how I see it. Current climate models are complete BS, and those defending them and the predicted catastrophic global warming are destroying whatever integrity science has. Hint: If you need to substitute actual measurements for your predicted values because of the divergence between the two, that's pretty strong evidence that your model is caca. Pretending otherwise is only going to fool the most feeble-minded, even if others pretend to believe for political reasons. The Earth has exquisite feed-back systems, otherwise it would long ago have become uninhabitable.
That said, we do need to get our CO2 production under control. We need to proceed with alternative, cleaner energy, energy conservation, and direct CO2 mitigation. Excess CO2 has many undeniable bad effects, especially in conjunction with other stressors like over-fishing, pollution by pesticides/herbicides/chemical compounds, siltation, etc.
True. We should work both sides, less pollution of all types and better methods of adapting to those changes that are inevitable.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter