Did we miss this? 2014 was the warmest year on record

[fskimospy]

How it works is exactly why I called high school science.

1. I did not get the result I expected.
2. Since I know the correct answer, I'll simply change the datum to that. I'll recognize the correct methodology because it gives me the answer I need.

This is exactly why all published measurements of the universe's expansion were wrong in direction until we got satellite telescopes. The science on the sign of the acceleration was settled, so any data had to be massaged until they agreed with the theory. That isn't science, it's science class. And it's gotten so laughable that climate scientists "correct" measurements recorded decades ago.

Good news: that's not how it works. What gave you such a sily idea?

 

[dphantom]

The article below is about 2 years old but I have not seen such a study before. Link is to abstract only.

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732


the study purports to show that there is a high correlation between CFCs and global temperature increase. The paper proposes all of the warming seen since 1950 can be attributed to CFCs and that they expect a cooling trend to appear for the next 5-7 decades.

The paper itself requires subscription so I can only relate what is in the abstract.

 

[rudeguy]

Don't worry guys, I just figured out global warming for us:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...lobal-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html


The sun is getting hotter! There. Discussion is over.
:awe:

 

[rudeguy]

I DP'd

 

[Jaskalas]

The paper itself requires subscription so I can only relate what is in the abstract.

I remembered that one, and have more information.
Study says global warming caused by CFCs interacting with cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide

That would work with the Satellite record's pause... but only if we start to cool. Or maybe we wouldn't cool... due to more CFCs than expected still lingering in the atmosphere... on top of the effect CO2 has.

There are so many variables one cannot simply correlate temperature with CFCs and call it a day. More research is needed there.

 

[dphantom]

I remembered that one, and have more information.
Study says global warming caused by CFCs interacting with cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide

That would work with the Satellite record's pause... but only if we start to cool. Or maybe we wouldn't cool... due to more CFCs than expected still lingering in the atmosphere... on top of the effect CO2 has.

There are so many variables one cannot simply correlate temperature with CFCs and call it a day. More research is needed there.

very good, thanks. Certainly much more study is required before we can lay any climatic change on any one cause.

 

[TheSlamma]

0.07°F?


Won't someone think of the children!?!?!?!

Tell that to coral reefs.

But hey Science isn't a subject for most Americans

 

[dphantom]

Tell that to coral reefs.

But hey Science isn't a subject for most Americans

Evidently not for you either.

Most coral sustain bleaching damage when average summertime temperatures are 1-2C above normal such as during an El Nino event. most corals do in fact recover when temperatures return to their previous state.

A sustained rise past 2C would in all probability severely damage ocean coral. We are a very long way from that though need to continue efforts to reduce unnecessary GHG and other emissions.

 

[glenn1]

Climate change, the existential crisis so terrible that people who believe in in do pretty much..... nothing. Because something about a "collective action problem" and "I already did my part by raising awareness now it's you who needs to change your complete lifestyle not me. Besides you're the one with the SUV."

"Sure that giant asteroid is heading straight for us, but I'll just cite scientific consensus and wait for others to agree to act first before I do anything besides complain."

 

[TheSlamma]

Evidently not for you either.

Most coral sustain bleaching damage when average summertime temperatures are 1-2C above normal such as during an El Nino event. most corals do in fact recover when temperatures return to their previous state.

A sustained rise past 2C would in all probability severely damage ocean coral. We are a very long way from that though need to continue efforts to reduce unnecessary GHG and other emissions.

So wait.. you say I don't get the science of it but then you basically say exactly what I stated? that high temps bleaches coral and that we need to do something to reduce GHG? So I'm wrong because coral can grow back.. well not if every year or 2 it gets hot enough to bleach it again and again like Indonesia is seeing.

As a diver who's dove near a thousand dives I can tell you that the sites I have seen bleached over the years in Thailand and the Caribbean some of them still have not recovered. Palencar reef off of Cozumel is a shadow of it's pre 2010 self and here we are 5 years later, the colors are not as vibrant, the variety is small and the animal numbers are a fraction of what they were. Now yes that can be from the over fishing too as far as the animals, but the coral looks like crap still.

Don't tell someone who has experienced it first hand as a diver and someone who has worked for an Aquarium for 3 years they don't understand the science of reefs. :thumbsdown:

 

[Subyman]

So wait.. you say I don't get the science of it but then you basically say exactly what I stated? that high temps bleaches coral and that we need to do something to reduce GHG? So I'm wrong because coral can grow back.. well not if every year or 2 it gets hot enough to bleach it again and again like Indonesia is seeing.

As a diver who's dove near a thousand dives I can tell you that the sites I have seen bleached over the years in Thailand and the Caribbean some of them still have not recovered. Palencar reef off of Cozumel is a shadow of it's pre 2010 self and here we are 5 years later, the colors are not as vibrant, the variety is small and the animal numbers are a fraction of what they were. Now yes that can be from the over fishing too as far as the animals, but the coral looks like crap still.

Don't tell someone who has experienced it first hand as a diver and someone who has worked for an Aquarium for 3 years they don't understand the science of reefs. :thumbsdown:

Gotta love it when people tell you no and then say the same thing you did.

 

[Jaskalas]

What did these coral reefs do 115 thousand years ago during the Eemian?

It was warmer than today as evidenced by the higher sea levels.

 

[fskimospy]

What did these coral reefs do 115 thousand years ago during the Eemian?

It was warmer than today as evidenced by the higher sea levels.

An important thing to remember is that even though people frequently say "save the earth", that's not really what they mean. What we should be saying is "save humanity". The Earth will get along just fine no matter what we do to it. Life will adapt. We have designed our society around the Earth being a certain way. If we push the Earth too far beyond that we may not like what we find.

 

[Subyman]

An important thing to remember is that even though people frequently say "save the earth", that's not really what they mean. What we should be saying is "save humanity". The Earth will get along just fine no matter what we do to it. Life will adapt. We have designed our society around the Earth being a certain way. If we push the Earth too far beyond that we may not like what we find.

I agree, or "save the Earth as we know it." The Earth naturally changes to a very large degree over millions of years. We are used to how it is in this tiny time slot. There is an argument that burning coal, polluting, and all that is natural because we are of nature and what we do is natural.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[werepossum]

Good news: that's not how it works. What gave you such a sily idea?

Observation.

What did these coral reefs do 115 thousand years ago during the Eemian?

It was warmer than today as evidenced by the higher sea levels.

That's a good point except that bleaching is caused by more than heat, it's a function of all stressors. Siltation, over-fishing, invasive species and pathogens, acidification, pollution, etc. together with heat may stress or kill an animal that the heat alone would hardly discomfit. I don't think we're going to lose all the reefs, but we might well see very significant damage across much of the world's reefs.

 

[chucky2]

So wait.. you say I don't get the science of it but then you basically say exactly what I stated? that high temps bleaches coral and that we need to do something to reduce GHG? So I'm wrong because coral can grow back.. well not if every year or 2 it gets hot enough to bleach it again and again like Indonesia is seeing.

As a diver who's dove near a thousand dives I can tell you snip...

A thousand dives? When you made your thousand dives, how did you get out into the water?

 

[nickqt]

A thousand dives? How did you get to 1000 dive locations?

How did you read into what he said that it was 1000 different dive locations?

 

[K1052]

#3 Green energy will never be as easy or as energy dense as oil shooting up out of a Saudi oil Well

Musk thinks he can get battery cost down to the mid $100s per kwh by 2020ish. If he does the fossil fuel industry is basically done for in the developed nations of the world (besides industrial and limited special transport use).

 

[chucky2]

How did you read into what he said that it was 1000 different dive locations?

You're right, that was presumptuous of me. I'll edit to be more clear.

 

[werepossum]

You're right, that was presumptuous of me. I'll edit to be more clear.

lol I did not catch your meaning the first go 'round. That's a bloody brilliant point, mate.

Every time I fly to an exotic location, motor out to the reef, and dive with air from my gasoline-powered generator, I discover that other people's irresponsible greenhouse gas are destroying the planet.

 

[bshole]

How it works is exactly why I called high school science.

1. I did not get the result I expected.
2. Since I know the correct answer, I'll simply change the datum to that. I'll recognize the correct methodology because it gives me the answer I need.

This is exactly why all published measurements of the universe's expansion were wrong in direction until we got satellite telescopes. The science on the sign of the acceleration was settled, so any data had to be massaged until they agreed with the theory. That isn't science, it's science class. And it's gotten so laughable that climate scientists "correct" measurements recorded decades ago.

That is the way it appears to me as well. The problem with the science is that it won't be really settled for decades if not centuries. It is completely different than all other science. It is just a bunch of models that "predict" what will happen. In my world, predicting something will happen is not science until that something actually happens. If it is science it is disprovable. The proof or disproof will come many many years from now. Name one other branch of science that works like this. That uses models to prove the theory. The model IS the theory, the climate is the proof.