Simple climate change test.

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,374
8,499
126
11/12, i didn't know what the old ppm was.

nice 'trick' question in there
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
11/12, picked 450ppm instead of 400ppm. What's 50ppm among friends?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
During the last ice age, huge ice sheets extended much farther from the poles than they do today. But the Earth&#8217;s average temperature was still comfortably above freezing.

Comfortable is canada and a good chunk of the northern usa covered by ice?
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
212
106
I got the one wrong cause it said dinosaurs
So I said none of the above, then its dinosaurs and plants in the correction box, which would have changed my answer if they worded the question that way!
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,052
1,681
126
"sunlight" Yes -- fossil fuel ultimately derives from sunlight. And! It's renewable. It takes about 100,000 years of heat and pressure operating on the organic material.

I had done some poking around about this, because the parallel issue to climate change is resource depletion. "How did it get there?" "When did it get there?"

There are several explanations. the simplest is that most of it was created during the Cambrian die-off about 200 million years ago. But there are also explanations of dead plankton accumulating in the bottom of oceans.

Some sources say that oil deposits range from 5 million to 200 million years in age.

There have been conferences about peak oil and "how much is left." There is disagreement in the scientific community -- some views slightly more optimistic. But one or more Cal-Tech scientists say there's enough to last for only several more decades. And of course, demand is growing.

The same scientists (and some I know of the same caliber) point to the difficulty of replacing it. It contains more energy per ounce than most any alternative -- if such alternatives even exist.

The challenge of the future -- and hopefully the NEAR future -- should be that of making petroleum obsolete for transportation and heating.

Meanwhile, the battles with know-nothings in congress and terrorists hiding under our beds continue.

"Time and Money are the essentials of economic thinking." You can't print more Time, and you can't simply "produce" more Time. So you'd think that Time is running out in two different and profound ways: Time before the planet is irreversibly degraded through carbon pollution; and Time before the oil runs out.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
got the 2 about ppm wrong. Not exactly info I thought I needed to memorize and it doesn't come up in convo very often.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,668
17,171
136
11/12 got hit on the "trick" CO2 question

Educated guesses on ppm & sea rise. I could never get that without multiple choice.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,962
140
106
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/
NOAA&#8217;s climate change science fiction

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made &#8220;adjustments&#8221; to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study&#8217;s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,634
2,205
146
12/12

I'm only skeptical about predictions of the future, not the established facts about the past and present.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I got the one wrong cause it said dinosaurs
So I said none of the above, then its dinosaurs and plants in the correction box, which would have changed my answer if they worded the question that way!
Yeah, I did the same thing. Seems a rather lazy answer.
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
3
0
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/
NOAA&#8217;s climate change science fiction

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made &#8220;adjustments&#8221; to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study&#8217;s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

What's the sources for this bullshit? BP?

Lamar Smith

Texas

Republican

check....

Smith is a Christian Scientist... wiki

Rofl!
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,306
14,951
146
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/
NOAA’s climate change science fiction

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

A CONSERVI-KOOK mistaking opinion for fact. (am I doing it right?)
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
"sunlight" Yes -- fossil fuel ultimately derives from sunlight. And! It's renewable. It takes about 100,000 years of heat and pressure operating on the organic material.

I had done some poking around about this, because the parallel issue to climate change is resource depletion. "How did it get there?" "When did it get there?"

There are several explanations. the simplest is that most of it was created during the Cambrian die-off about 200 million years ago. But there are also explanations of dead plankton accumulating in the bottom of oceans.

Some sources say that oil deposits range from 5 million to 200 million years in age.

There have been conferences about peak oil and "how much is left." There is disagreement in the scientific community -- some views slightly more optimistic. But one or more Cal-Tech scientists say there's enough to last for only several more decades. And of course, demand is growing.

The same scientists (and some I know of the same caliber) point to the difficulty of replacing it. It contains more energy per ounce than most any alternative -- if such alternatives even exist.

The challenge of the future -- and hopefully the NEAR future -- should be that of making petroleum obsolete for transportation and heating.

Meanwhile, the battles with know-nothings in congress and terrorists hiding under our beds continue.

"Time and Money are the essentials of economic thinking." You can't print more Time, and you can't simply "produce" more Time. So you'd think that Time is running out in two different and profound ways: Time before the planet is irreversibly degraded through carbon pollution; and Time before the oil runs out.
BP says they have 53.3 years of reserves. So something like that. I'd go with the oil companies own research on their own reserves.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Its a dumb quiz tho.

How definitively strong is the link between CO2 and sea level rise hmm?

Putting those questions together like that will automatically associate the two in most peoples heads.
 

K7SN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2015
353
0
0
12/12. There several I had to think about.

Same here but only one question made me think, carbon comes from life and life comes from the sun but I wasn't sure they thought that deep; an old fogey I recall the Sinclair Oil Commercials and knew that dinosaurs played a very minor part of fossil fuel creation so had to go to the source.; was correct but all of the answers were possible too some extent, even Uranium adds to the earth's ability to generate some heat outside of the sun; the Hawaiian chain, the older Aleutian chian, Yellowstone, ...

The PPM was easy for me roughly 300 in the 19th century and approaching 400 for yearly average in the 2015 (up almost 3 PPM) and February we passed 400 which was the estimated highest level of C02 for Homo Sapiens and perhaps entire Homo genus. The point is we have been in a global cooling environment since the beginning of the Miocene some 20 million years ago.

A good read, though I question their absolute numbers was in Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/ Whether CO2 stays in the atmosphere 5, 10, 20, or more years it doesn't stay long and if we cut the cord on fossil fuel we would be cooling down; currently the best estimate is several generations in the future before we see a trend reversal even if the commitments made at Paris all go into effect, all nations adhere to their commitments and something disastrous doesn't happen before they can work.

When that cooling process begins is what is undermined; predicating where levels will rise to before a major trigger occurs is what worries me; we are at the limit were major things happened 150,000 and 300,000 years ago and now entering uncharted territory for our species. We still can slow down increases, keep them to a couple more degrees rise (Fahrenheit) or Celsius degree if we don't exceed 450 PPM but something catastrophic for mankind may happen in the next few centuries; hope I'm moldering in the grave before it does.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,634
2,205
146
I'd like to know when climate models get good enough to do some speculative real estate investing.