Climate Science Is Not Settled

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,643
15,830
146
The point was that it was considered main stream enough to be in the text books used in CA, and that it was apparently wrong.

Another example of why a shitty science education is bad. :(

This is why liberals always bitch about school text books and science classes being manipulated by bass ackward school districts.

It leads to folks such as yourself and bshole who are scientifically illiterate.

I thought Cali had better schools than that.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
I see the WSJ continues its campaign to deny the science of climate change by finding *a* scientist to confirm their bias...a scientist who works for BP no less.

Actually, in this case its a pretty mild denial (and not really one at that).
 

himkhan

Senior member
Jul 13, 2013
665
370
136
Al Gore claimed in 2007 we'd have no polar ice at all this year and yet we actually have more ice. Enter the picture of the polar bear and her cub "adrift" on a mini-iceberg, etc.

That is the kind of alarmist (and false) bullshit that isn't needed in the climate debate.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ The Arctic ice acts like the worlds AC by reflecting the suns rays back into space and keeping the GLOBAL temp down. It's not surprising Antarctica is covered in more ice... Fact remains, the Arctic ice continues to trend downwards and that is far more important to climate change than record ice in the South Pole.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,966
55,358
136
In the 7th grade the book said the smallest particles were the proton, neutron, and electron. Things change, even things that have achieved "consensus".

Not only was there never a rigorous scientific consensus about elementary particles the way there is about climate science, but considering you apparently went to 7th grade in the 1970's as per your statements about global cooling that means your science textbook was still claiming that protons, neutrons, and electrons were the smallest particles years after the existence of the quark was confirmed.

Maybe you just had the worst science textbook ever.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,643
15,830
146
Elementary particles can be proven where as climate science is a bunch of computer models and extrapolations. Extrapolations are the worst ever when it comes to accuracy and predictions. Thats what economists do and they are wrong all the time. The climate models haven't been accurate and they keep revising the models and will continue to do so.

I think what they are doing is fundamentally flawed. Trying to use 50-100 years of data to model the next 50-100 years is going to be horribly inaccurate. Then you mix in long-term data like CO2 ice cores and try to use it to justify short term trends. In terms of the long-term climate they couldn't predict the next ice age.

There are also many one-off events that can drastically change the climate such as large volcanic eruptions or the evolution of fungi that can break down lignin (as there was a period of time where tons of sequestered carbon built up in the form of lignin, it took millions of years for ligninase to appear). The climate is very much tied to the biology of those living under it. There have been periods of time where it has been hyper oxygenated, or periods of time it contained barely any oxygen. There were periods of time where earth was so covered in ice reflecting the sun that there was a good chance it would have stayed that way were it not for some other one-off event (can't remember) that changed our climate.

As far as humans go we are no different than the evolution of ligninase. We're releasing millions of years of sequestered carbon for better or worse. We could be bacteria that breakdown sequestered carbon into CO2 for all the earth cares. Long term it will probably screw up the biome living on earth, especially for us. I suppose climate change is science's very indirect way of discussing the fact that if you move the timeline out thousands of years we're probably screwed as evolution is always moving forward and 99.9% of the species are extinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

Just for perspective not really a citation. Doesn't matter if we do it, or something evolves out of left field and does it, its going to happen no matter what. The climates going to change. Its been happening for millions of years.

Read carefully and really understand



And life will go on. I find the below interesting is all.

Got it. Extinction events happen. It will happen to us. If our choice is doing it to ourselves or passing some regulations well the obvious choice is better fuck up our standard of living than pass those regulations.

This is a well reasoned argument.


Totally..


o_O
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
National Academy Of Sciences isn't good enough for you?

I guess they don't count unless they are paid to study warming first.

That was an interesting article that didn't actually endorse the next ice age. Rather, it said such was a possibility and climate science simply doesn't know. Check out the last paragraph on page 139. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center of Atmospheric Research predicted a 0.5 degree temperature rise by the end of the century from increased CO2 and an unknown effect (either warming or cooling) from increased particulate pollutants. Then he went on to say even if we control the above pollutants, heat pollution from human activity could cause a temperature rise of up to 3.0 degrees. If that last prediction is right, humans don't have to just stop releasing CO2, we have to stop living our lives, because the heat released through daily activities will kill this planet.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
Got it. Extinction events happen. It will happen to us. If our choice is doing it to ourselves or passing some regulations well the obvious choice is better fuck up our standard of living than pass those regulations.

This is a well reasoned argument.


Totally..


o_O

I don't think GW/CC will cause the extinction of Humanity. However, in case you haven't noticed, Living Standards have already been fucked up by other means. That said, dealing with this issue doesn't need to cause much decrease in those standards. Not dealing with the issue will lower those standards, guaranteed.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
heat pollution from human activity could cause a temperature rise of up to 3.0 degrees. If that last prediction is right, humans don't have to just stop releasing CO2, we have to stop living our lives, because the heat released through daily activities will kill this planet.

I would not go so far as to say "kill the planet". Certainly, such a temperature rise will change things for us, some better and some worse.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Got it. Extinction events happen. It will happen to us. If our choice is doing it to ourselves or passing some regulations well the obvious choice is better fuck up our standard of living than pass those regulations.

This is a well reasoned argument.


Totally..


o_O

Whatever. Yerp!
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
WTF OverVolt,

That post you just erased was spot on! Why the hell would you erase it?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,257
6,443
136
Another example of why a shitty science education is bad. :(

This is why liberals always bitch about school text books and science classes being manipulated by bass ackward school districts.

It leads to folks such as yourself and bshole who are scientifically illiterate.

I thought Cali had better schools than that.

Since you completely misunderstood my comment, and you're now into wild ass guesses about my education, or lack there of, it would be wise to just stop here. You're in defensive idiot mode about to step over into full blown retard. Let it go.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
7e835e9e-f3f5-4b93-a4c1-e028efe56e44.jpeg

Developing countries want rich nations to pay billions of dollars to help them boost renewable energy and address the problems of global warming. Those pledges remain largely unfulfilled, ... The U.S. hasn’t pledged a contribution yet.

“For the negotiations, that is critical,” Ogden, a former Obama administration official, said in an interview.
The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Kyoto convention) clearly states that developed countries have a “historical responsibility” for their carbon emissions. They have accrued a climate debt to developing countries which must be reflected in ambitious emission-reduction targets, as well as technology transfer and financial support for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.
The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars...

I don't understand the confusion. Don't all of the politicians agree? Isn't the political science settled?

To save the planet, all you have to give more billions of dollars to first world politicians so that they can give more billions of dollars to third world politicians...

Global Warming --> Climate Change --> Climate Justice

All it takes is money.

Uno
 
Last edited:

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Full of irony considering if the issue was billing China for past emissions there would be not very much opposition from here.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
Google thinks otherwise :awe:


Google Dumps ALEC: They Are 'Literally Lying' About Climate Change

http://inhabitat.com/google-dumps-alec-they-are-literally-lying-about-climate-change/

Google just officially ended its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — a shadowy right-wing organization that writes industry-friendly bills for conservative legislators to pass at the local, state and national level. In explaining their decision to part ways with ALEC, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told NPR’s Diane Rehm that the group is “literally lying” about climate change: “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.”

Google’s not alone – Microsoft announced in August that it will sever its ties with ALEC, citing the group’s lobbying against renewable energy. Both Microsoft and Google are investing in clean energy projects – last year Microsoft announced it would power one of its data centers from a 110 megawatt Texas wind farm and Google announced it would invest $103 million in a California solar power plant. Google has invested more than $1 billion in wind and solar projects and has a goal to power its data centers with 100 percent renewable energy.

ALEC has mounted an intense campaign to block any legislation favorable to clean energy — targeting state renewable portfolio standards and EPA regulations of greenhouse gas emissions. ALEC formed in 1973 as a tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c)(3) dedicated to the conservative principles of “free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level.” However over the years the organization has been accused of being a front group for major corporations to push their anti-regulation, anti-tax agenda through legislatures. In addition to its relentless attacks on clean energy, last year ALEC pushed “model bills” in three states that would mandate the teaching of climate change denial in schools.

Earlier this month a letter from 50 public interest groups was sent to Google urging the Internet giant to cut ties with ALEC. The letter stated that “the public knows that the ALEC operation—which brings state legislators and corporate lobbyists behind closed doors to discuss proposed legislation and share lavish dinners—threatens our democracy. The public is asking Google to stop participating in this scheme.”
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
. Both Microsoft and Google are investing in clean energy projects – last year Microsoft announced it would power one of its data centers from a 110 megawatt Texas wind farm and Google announced it would invest $103 million in a California solar power plant. Google has invested more than $1 billion in wind and solar projects and has a goal to power its data centers with 100 percent renewable energy.

Shocking..... that companies that are trying to make a buck on "clean" energy (that is wiping out entire bird populations) would sever relations with entities opposed to it.

I find it more dangerous that a company that guards the portals of information on the internet now has a vested FINANCIAL interest in the global warming meme.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Shocking..... that companies that are trying to make a buck on "clean" energy (that is wiping out entire bird populations) would sever relations with entities opposed to it. I find it more dangerous that a company that guards the portals of information on the internet now has a vested FINANCIAL interest in the global warming meme.

You know private companies are conning money off of education also. I think you are probably right that we have slow down education.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Google thinks otherwise :awe:


Google Dumps ALEC: They Are 'Literally Lying' About Climate Change

http://inhabitat.com/google-dumps-alec-they-are-literally-lying-about-climate-change/

Google just officially ended its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — a shadowy right-wing organization that writes industry-friendly bills for conservative legislators to pass at the local, state and national level. In explaining their decision to part ways with ALEC, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told NPR’s Diane Rehm that the group is “literally lying” about climate change: “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.”

Google’s not alone – Microsoft announced in August that it will sever its ties with ALEC, citing the group’s lobbying against renewable energy. Both Microsoft and Google are investing in clean energy projects – last year Microsoft announced it would power one of its data centers from a 110 megawatt Texas wind farm and Google announced it would invest $103 million in a California solar power plant. Google has invested more than $1 billion in wind and solar projects and has a goal to power its data centers with 100 percent renewable energy.

ALEC has mounted an intense campaign to block any legislation favorable to clean energy — targeting state renewable portfolio standards and EPA regulations of greenhouse gas emissions. ALEC formed in 1973 as a tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c)(3) dedicated to the conservative principles of “free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level.” However over the years the organization has been accused of being a front group for major corporations to push their anti-regulation, anti-tax agenda through legislatures. In addition to its relentless attacks on clean energy, last year ALEC pushed “model bills” in three states that would mandate the teaching of climate change denial in schools.

Earlier this month a letter from 50 public interest groups was sent to Google urging the Internet giant to cut ties with ALEC. The letter stated that “the public knows that the ALEC operation—which brings state legislators and corporate lobbyists behind closed doors to discuss proposed legislation and share lavish dinners—threatens our democracy. The public is asking Google to stop participating in this scheme.”
Please enumerate these lies. The article you cited wasn't very specific.
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
It's probably time for this thread to die. Then, 5 days from now, we can have a new thread on global warming, and those two will repeat the same misinformation again. Isn't that how the last 30 threads on this topic have gone? State "facts," be spoon fed evidence from credible sources that those facts are wrong, start new thread, restate "facts."
Thank you, DrPizza..... I'm surprised that there hasn't yet been the common misrepresenting deflection of volcanic greenhouse gas emissions dwarfing those by modern civilisation..... Permit me to pre-empt:

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview [USGS]

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

Yearly CO2 emitters
Billion metric tons per year (Gt/y)

Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate) 0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0
Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks) 3.0
Approximately 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations * 0.22
Argentina 0.22
Pakistan 0.18
Saudi Arabia 0.44

CO2 emission events

Mount St. Helens, 18 May 1980 0.01 Gt
Mount Pinatubo, 15 June 1991 0.05 Gt
Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2 3500


2010 anthropogenic CO2 multiplier (ACM)**

135 1900 ACM
18 1950 ACM 38
Number of days for anthropogenic CO2 to equal a year's worth of global volcanism 2.7


* Equal to 2% of the world's coal-fired electricity-generating capacity.
**Ratio of annual anthropogenic CO2 (35 Gt) to maximum preferred estimate for annual volcanic CO2.
With climate change, the contemporary issue concerns that of rate of change. That rate of change throughout the environment and geography from precipitation, wind patterns, cloud cover, ocean acid acidification (nominally CO2), etc. The direct issues at hand for anthropogenic alteration of the global environment is not simply that of temperature.

The issue can be complex. The more complex an issue the easier it may be to mount a campaign of reactionary deniability that best thrives in population groups without critical thinking skills, lacklustre scientific knowledge, or lacking an intimate familiarity with regions beyond an urban environment.

The increasing rates of quantitative change (an easy example is to witness the increased geographical extremes of vegetation into higher elevations and latitudes and to that of extended growing seasons, many altering over relatively brief decadal periods), this dramatically deters he ability of the natural environment and human civilisation the ability to adapt. Existing and reliant food stocks change. Currently dependant marine and terrestrial stocks can greatly diminish, harming the vertical relationship between species.
 
Last edited:

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Here is a brand new peer reviewed paper that addresses climate sensitivity to CO2. It is to be published in Climate Dynamics this month. Below is a link to the paper.

http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf

Briefly, the paper uses data from the IPCC 5th AWG to refine estimates of climate sensitivity and shows that climate is less sensitive to CO2 than has been estimated.

Certainly, climate is affected by CO2, but it appears to not be as much as expected.