Jump to content
Laxtonto

The Climate thread

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Earth's gonna earth

Again, address the science. But we all know you cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, address the science. But we all know you cannot.

You're gonna die, idiot.  That's the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you haven't yet figured out that one <CR> gives you a double space on Surly then the subject of AGW may be a little bit beyond your grasp. Throwing up your hands and declaring that it's pointless to worry about it is a common response by those who don't understand the subject.

Snowballs are frozen all over. That has never described Earth. I suppose you thought your comment about the fireball and snowball was clever. I wonder if you know why  those different environments existed in the past and how they're not really relevant to the current discussion. Interglacial periods -- how do they work?

Did you know that there was a long time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere? It took the evolution of a microscopic organism with the novel ability to produce oxygen as a waste product, and then a long time while the earth rusted, before there was enough of it in the atmosphere for land animals to evolve. Did you also know that there used to be just one big continent? Do you know about plate tectonics and how the distribution of land on the surface of the Earth affects the climate?

The climate scientists all know the history of world climate far better than you. The understanding of how and why the climate has changed throughout the planet's 4.5 billion year history is all considered. It's really not hard to understand. Unless you're determined not to. 

Earth has most certainly been a snow ball at least once if not twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

You're gonna die, idiot.  That's the science.

? I simply do not understand your need to be so fatalistic and to avoid any real discussion on this issue. Yes, the earth will one day be inhabitable for people. But that day need not be for millions or even billions of years. Continuing on our current path will shorten that time to hundreds of years. In a very short time frame we have significantly warmed the earth. More so than even extreme (and rare) geological events.

Again, point to any science, rather than blind political belief, that indicates otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 9:40 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Snowballs are frozen all over. That has never described Earth. I suppose you thought your comment about the fireball and snowball was clever. I wonder if you know why  those different environments existed in the past and how they're not really relevant to the current discussion. Interglacial periods -- how do they work?

Fun fact: Giant snowball won't ever describe Earth.  If President Skroob vacuumed out our atmosphere and we were stuck at 0'F global surface temperature, the tropics still wouldn't freeze and water would still exist in all three phases.  We are going to have to wait for the Sun to cool before we really get the snowball going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Fun fact: Giant snowball won't ever describe Earth.  If President Skroob vacuumed out our atmosphere and we were stuck at 0'F global surface temperature, the tropics still wouldn't freeze and water would still exist in all three phases.  We are going to have to wait for the Sun to cool before we really get the snowball going.

Nope, there has been snow ball Earth.  At least once. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nope, there has been snow ball Earth.  At least once. 

I'm assuming Mega Maid doesn't change the earth's geography along the way.  Let's keep our continents and oceans laid out the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JBJ said:

I'm assuming Mega Maid doesn't change the earth's geography along the way.  Let's keep our continents and oceans laid out the way they are.

Well yeah, I'm talking total Earth history.  And we're always floating along changing inch by inch every year.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 8/4/2018 at 1:18 PM, Parliament said:

 

You do realize that the article is talking about total CO2, while your graph is talking about the amount released by the US for the past ten years. The total amount is mostly our fault, as we have put more total into CO2 the atmosphere than any other country. The article also talks about a positive feedback loop of hotter temps due to past emissions (which was "our fault") causing warming, which in turn causes more CO2. The US could become carbon neural tomorrow, and global warming would still be mostly "our fault".

 

On 8/4/2018 at 2:37 PM, TKthunder2 said:

I also used to believe that climate change was a bunch of bull$#@!; that there was some sort of conspiracy to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights to private property via the scare tactics and fear-mongering of global warming/climate change.  

Then I went back to school, took a course in Chem 101, Physics 101, 102, and had instructors throughout the sciences and maths who contributed to the body of climate change research (including a a Calc IV/Diff EQ instructor with a masters in meteorology who flew into Rita ... of all people).

To anyone who is on the fence on climate change or perhaps with an affinity for the truth, I urge them to set aside the politics and supernatural religious woo-woo long enough to learn the science themselves. Don't listen to the politicians, pundits, or liberal arts column writers/bloggers who don't have the expertise in science to render an expert opinion.

For me, I learned that the science itself is settled ... as settled as anything ever is in science, and that the waters have been muddied by $$$, politics, and useful idiots who are ignorant of science. 97% of the peer-reviewed papers of scientists qualified to have a non-ignorant opinion (via education) agree that climate change is very real and is indeed anthropogenic.

The politics of what to do about it is a whole other matter. But the rampant denialism ... that $#@! has got to go. I urge that conservatives cease the anti-science crusade, accept reality, and to start working on solutions that aren't steeped in collectivism and aren't a rejection of individual rights to ownership and liberty.

 

Its amazing what a little education can do for you.

 

On 8/15/2018 at 6:20 PM, Dahobbs said:

The important point to notice is that not only are we approaching unprecedented average temperatures within the last 20,000 years, but also that the rate of change is dramatic, and simply not found in the geologic record outside of natural disasters (super volcanoes and large meteors). The trend line is simply terrifying. 

 

This is an important point that all the snowball earth and molten hell hole Earth idiots seem to not understand. The rate of temp increase is higher than it has ever been.

 

On 8/17/2018 at 1:18 AM, Pods said:

There are lots of areas with very complete and thick geologic sections that provide very good timelines for millions of years at a stretch. The Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary is only one example. Tertiary Fort Union Formation overlays the Cretaceous Hell Creek/Lance Creek/Ojo Alamo, etc FM's. 

We are currently in a major mass extinction event, one of only 5-7 worldwide mass extinction events in history. The climate change related extinctions are only getting started. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Humans will probably also go extinct before it gets better. 

 

And the only human-caused one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

 

https://www.axios.com/maersk-to-send-first-container-ship-through-arctic-5b739974-d045-4c68-bd46-ce751fc20a51.html?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=organic

 

Quote

A Danish cargo container vessel is about to set out on a voyage that will be a milestone in the opening of Arctic waters to marine shipping — and it's a direct result of climate change. 

Why it matters: The Arctic has been warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the globe, and sea ice has declined sharply since 1979. As the ice melts, Arctic shipping routes are becoming more attractive as an alternative to sailing through the Suez Canal.

Quote

Danish shipping giant Maersk will send the first cargo container vessel unaided through the Arctic's Northern Sea Route, departing from Vladivostok this week and passing the Bering Strait on Sept. 1.

The ship, known as the Venta Maersk, will move across the top of Russia from east to west and should arrive in St. Petersburg by the end of September. 

This route used to require the help of nuclear-powered icebreakers, and was not economically attractive for cargo shipping companies.

Maersk is sending the Venta at a time when Arctic sea ice is nearing its seasonal minimum, and is more fractured than it is during the winter.

During the period from 1979 to 2017, sea ice has declined by about 33,200 square miles per year, or 13.2% per decade compared to the 1981-2010 average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

2018-08-23-actic-temps-tablet.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has puzzled me for 25 years why we remove the sulfur  from fossil fuels drastically increasing the net heating effect.

We have aslo eliminated vast herds of animals and minimized the soil's ability to store carbon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RayDog said:

It has puzzled me for 25 years why we remove the sulfur  from fossil fuels drastically increasing the net heating effect.

Because it actually kills people?

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost in all of the political fights over the last few weeks, the trump admin reported that the average temp will rise by 7 degrees F between now and the end of the century.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.c87af5e1bc18

their conclusion is that there is nothing we can do about it, so the Obama era vehicle emissions standards should all be dropped. 

How high will the sea rise with a 7 F increase?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

How high will the sea rise with a 7 F increase?   

Hopefully high enough to put me back on a beach, where I was during the Cretaceous Period.  House value would then soar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

7 degrees ??  That seems a tad high.

If we do nothing, it is about right. Basically, everyone is fucked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the surly take on higher crop yields and better water retention with higher CO2 levels? Seems like a silver lining of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Lost in all of the political fights over the last few weeks, the trump admin reported that the average temp will rise by 7 degrees F between now and the end of the century.

"Come at me, Bro."

Signed:

Flag_of_North_Dakota.svg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Lost in all of the political fights over the last few weeks, the trump admin reported that the average temp will rise by 7 degrees F between now and the end of the century.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.c87af5e1bc18

their conclusion is that there is nothing we can do about it, so the Obama era vehicle emissions standards should all be dropped. 

How high will the sea rise with a 7 F increase?   

It's from Trump so fake news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the new IPCC report, looks like we’re headed for a 3-3.5C rise.  Global capitalism for the motherfucking win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Humanity gonna kill off half of all living species like a fucking boss. 

Well it's one of the things we've been really good at since we decided to leave Africa. Wherever humans went the big fauna died out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

What’s the surly take on higher crop yields and better water retention with higher CO2 levels? Seems like a silver lining of sorts.

Only if you're a clueless moron who doesn't understand the subject. Increased CO2 to a plant does help, to a certain extent, during the daytime. There's a threshold beyond which additional CO2 isn't used by the plant. The chemical reactions in the plant that use CO2 are powered by sunlight so all that extra CO2 is just trapping radiant heat during the nighttime, not helping the plants at all.

And here's another crucial point -- the CO2 actually has to come into contact with the plant in order for the plant to use it. Crazy, I know. Every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere that's above the trees is just trapping heat, not contributing to plant growth. And there's a lot of atmosphere above the trees. 

I doubt that was a question you thought of by yourself. Do you see now how stupid it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Only if you're a clueless moron who doesn't understand the subject. Increased CO2 to a plant does help, to a certain extent, during the daytime. There's a threshold beyond which additional CO2 isn't used by the plant. The chemical reactions in the plant that use CO2 are powered by sunlight so all that extra CO2 is just trapping radiant heat during the nighttime, not helping the plants at all.

And here's another crucial point -- the CO2 actually has to come into contact with the plant in order for the plant to use it. Crazy, I know. Every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere that's above the trees is just trapping heat, not contributing to plant growth. And there's a lot of atmosphere above the trees. 

I doubt that was a question you thought of by yourself. Do you see now how stupid it is?

Plants combined with animal herds can allow to more co2 to be sequestered in the soil. Natural sequestration produced by animal herds and plant growth could be more successful than anything else we can try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Only if you're a clueless moron who doesn't understand the subject. Increased CO2 to a plant does help, to a certain extent, during the daytime. There's a threshold beyond which additional CO2 isn't used by the plant. The chemical reactions in the plant that use CO2 are powered by sunlight so all that extra CO2 is just trapping radiant heat during the nighttime, not helping the plants at all.

And here's another crucial point -- the CO2 actually has to come into contact with the plant in order for the plant to use it. Crazy, I know. Every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere that's above the trees is just trapping heat, not contributing to plant growth. And there's a lot of atmosphere above the trees. 

I doubt that was a question you thought of by yourself. Do you see now how stupid it is?

Don't let the hate consume you.

Higher CO2 levels definitely help plants; be they crops, or forests or grasslands or deserts.  How much it may benefit Humanity is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Don't let the hate consume you.

Higher CO2 levels definitely help plants; be they crops, or forests or grasslands or deserts.  How much it may benefit Humanity is up for debate.

Plants also have an ideal temperature range to grow in.  If you make it too warm, they won't fruit or flourish.  Anybody who has had jalopenos fail to fruit due to blossom drop knows this well.  Scientist are already engineering plants to deal with temperature stress, but several species, including corn, are beginning to get to the top of the theoretical yield possibilities.

That CO2 doesn't do you a lot of good in that situation. Plants are living creatures that interact with the environment in a myriad of ways, not a CO2/O2 exchange machine.

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land

Quote

The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by climate models contains more than 70 different sorts of problems.  Trillions of dollars have been spent because of predictions based on this data – yet even the most baby-basic quality control checks have not been done.

Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.

Why. Why. Why wasn’t this done years ago?

So much for that facade. How can people who care about the climate be so sloppy and amateur with the data?

HadCrut4, Global Temperature, 1850 - 2018. Graph.

HadCrut4 Global Temperature, 1850 – 2018.

Absurdity everywhere in Hadley Met Centre data

There are cases of tropical islands recording a monthly average of zero degrees — this is the mean of the daily highs and lows for the month. A spot in Romania spent one whole month averaging minus 45 degrees. One site in Colombia recorded three months of over 80 degrees C. That is so incredibly hot that even the minimums there were probably hotter than the hottest day on Earth. In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.

Dr McLean audited the HadCrut4 global data from 1850 onwards for his PhD thesis, and then continued it on afterwards til it was complete:

“I was aghast to find that nothing was done to remove absurd values… the whole approach to the dataset’s creation is careless and amateur, about the standard of a first-year university student.”
– John McLean

His supervisor was Peter Ridd, famously sacked for saying that “the science was not being checked, tested or replicated” and for suggesting we might not be able to trust our institutions

Data is incredibly, brazenly, sparse

The Hadley Met Centre team have not even analyzed this data with a tool as serious as a spell checker.

For two years the entire Southern Hemisphere temperature was estimated from one sole land-based site in Indonesia and some ship data. We didn’t get 50% global coverage until 1906. We didn’t consistently get 50% Southern Hemisphere coverage until about 1950.

McLean’s findings show there is almost no quality control on this crucial data. The Hadley Met Centre team have not even analyzed this data with a tool as serious as a spell checker.  Countries include “Venezuala”,” Hawaai”, and the “Republic of K” (also known as South Korea). One country is “Unknown” while other countries are not even countries – like “Alaska”.

The real fault of the modern day institutes is not so much the lack of historic data, but for the way they “sell” the trends and records as if they are highly certain and meaningful.

HadCrut4, Southern Hemisphere Temperatures, Graph, 1850 -2018.

HadCrut4, Southern Hemisphere Temperatures, 1850 -2018.

There are systematic and far reaching problems

The HadCRUT4 dataset is a joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

The CRU data covers 10,295 stations, but 2693 – more than a quarter – don’t meet the criteria for inclusion described in Jones et al 2012, which is considered to the best description of what should and shouldn’t be included.

It is impossible to know exactly which sites are included in the final temperature analysis, and whether a site’s records have been adjusted. (If only we could do our tax returns like this?)

The sub-parts of the datasets contradict each other. The land set and the sea set should combine up to be the global set, but they don’t always match. Which one is right?

“It seems like neither organization properly checked the land or sea temperature data before using it in the HadCRUT4 dataset. If it had been checked then the CRU might have queried the more obvious errors in data supplied by different countries.  The Hadley Centre might also have found some of the inconsistencies in the sea surface temperature data, along with errors that it created itself when it copied data from the hand-written logs of some Royal Navy ships.” 

– John McLean

Cooling the past one hundred years later?

In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do need to move, but corrections don’t have to treat old sites as if they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.

New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the site “ages” buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back through the decades cooling all the older original readings – even readings that were probably taken when the site was just a paddock.  In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was. Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to take temperatures that a computer “corrected” a century later.

We’ve seen the effect of site moves in Australia in Canberra, Bourke, Melbourne and  Sydney. After being hammered in the Australian press (thanks to Graham Lloyd), the BOM finally named a “site move” as the major reason that a cooling trend had been adjusted to a warming one. In Australia adjustments to data increase the trend by as much as 40%.

In theory, a thermometer in a paddock in 1860 should be comparable to a thermometer in a paddock in 1980. But the experts deem the older one must be reading too high because someone may have built a concrete tarmac next to it forty or eighty years later. This systematic error, just by itself, creates a warming trend from nothing, step-change by step-change.

Worse, the adjustments are cumulative. The oldest data may be reduced with every step correction for site moves. Ken Stewart found some adjustments to old historic data in Australia wipe as much as 2C off the earliest temperatures. We’ve only had “theoretically” 0.9C of warming this century.

While each national bureau supplies the “preadjusted” data. The Hadley Centre is accepting them. Does it check? Does it care?

No audits, no checks, who cares?

As far as we can tell this key data has never been audited before. (What kind of audit would leave in these blatant errors?) Company finances get audited regularly but when global projections and billions of dollars are on the table climate scientists don’t care whether the data has undergone basic quality-control checks, or is consistent or even makes sense.

Vast areas of non-existent measurements

In May 1861 the global coverage, according to the grid-system method that HadCRUT4 uses, was 12%.  That means that no data was reported from almost 90% of the Earth’s surface.  Despite this it’s said to be a “global average”.  That makes no sense at all. The global average temperature anomaly is calculated from data that at times covers as little as 12.2% of the Earth’s surface”, he says.  “Until 1906 global coverage was less than 50% and coverage didn’t hit 75% until 1956.  That’s a lot of the Earth’s surface for which we have no data.” – John McLean

Real thermometer data is ignored

In 1850 and 1851 the official data for the Southern Hemisphere only includes one sole thermometer in Indonesia and some random boats. (At the time, the ship data covers about 15% of the oceans in the southern half of the globe, and even the word “covers” may mean as little as one measurement in a month in a grid cell, though it is usually more.) Sometimes there is data that could be used, but isn’t. This is partly the choice of all the separate national meteorology organisations who may not send in any data to Hadley. But neither do the Hadley staff appear to be bothered that data is so sparse or that there might be thermometer measurements that would be better than nothing.

How many heatwaves did they miss? For example, on the 6th of February, 1851, newspaper archives show temperatures in the shade hit 117F in Melbourne (that’s 47C), 115 in Warnambool, and 114 in Geelong. That was the day of the Black Thursday MegaFire. The Australian BOM argues that these were not standard officially sited thermometers, but compared to inland boats, frozen Caribbean islands and 80 degree months in Colombia, surely actual data is more useful than estimates from thermometers 5,000 to 10,000km away? Seems to me multiple corroborated unofficial thermometers in Melbourne might be more useful than one official lone thermometer in Indonesia.

While the Hadley dataset is not explicitly estimating the temperature in Melbourne in 1850 per se, they are estimating “the Southern Hemisphere” and “The Globe” and Melbourne is a part of that. By default, there must be some assumptions and guesstimates to fill in what is missing.

How well would the Indonesian thermometer and some ship data correlate with temperatures in Tasmania, Peru, or Botswana? Would it be “more accurate” than an actual thermometer, albeit in the shade but not in a Stevenson screen? You and I might think so, but we’re not “the experts”.

Time the experts answered some hard questions.

Garbage in, garbage out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laxtonto said:

Well, other than that telling us nothing, sure.

How many data points are there?  That is, if there are, say 10,000 data points/measuring station, and 10 are shown to be flawed, that will likely have little effect on the ultimate numbers.  If, on the other hand, these suspect stations and measurements are a material portion of the data, removing/adjusting them should have a material affect.  For example, if I am trying to determine the average monthly checking account balance for Americans, and I screw up one of my data transcriptions (John Smith's account balance is $5,000, but I mess up and type in $50,000), and I am only gathering data from 100 people, that error would likely materially change my "average" number.  If, on the other hand, that's one error out of 10,000 people, it will have an insignificant effect.

I'd like to see what the actually CONCLUSION should be -- the audit should remove suspect data points (high temps, low temps, it doesn't matter -- use a methodology to determine what suspect data points are, and eliminate them), then re-run the numbers.  Does the ultimate conclusion then materially differ from the original one?

A suspect data point -- while it should not be there -- does not NECESSARILY render an analysis of lots of data useless.  This analysis tells us one fact -- there is suspect data for certain points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, other than that telling us nothing, sure.

How many data points are there?  That is, if there are, say 10,000 data points/measuring station, and 10 are shown to be flawed, that will likely have little effect on the ultimate numbers.  If, on the other hand, these suspect stations and measurements are a material portion of the data, removing/adjusting them should have a material affect.  For example, if I am trying to determine the average monthly checking account balance for Americans, and I screw up one of my data transcriptions (John Smith's account balance is $5,000, but I mess up and type in $50,000), and I am only gathering data from 100 people, that error would likely materially change my "average" number.  If, on the other hand, that's one error out of 10,000 people, it will have an insignificant effect.

I'd like to see what the actually CONCLUSION should be -- the audit should remove suspect data points (high temps, low temps, it doesn't matter -- use a methodology to determine what suspect data points are, and eliminate them), then re-run the numbers.  Does the ultimate conclusion then materially differ from the original one?

A suspect data point -- while it should not be there -- does not NECESSARILY render an analysis of lots of data useless.  This analysis tells us one fact -- there is suspect data for certain points.

Well approximately 1/4(2500ish) do not meet the data collection thresholds and most data prior to 1950 is not sufficient to make a claim for global coverage. I am not even sure if there is enough consistent data to try to make claims at a regional level. The data just inst there pre 1950s

This is on top corrections over correct more than what would be considered the proposed warming over that entire trend.

 

It goes back to if you bias your corrections on both ends of course you see a trend....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

^^ joannanova.com seems like it is the foremost authority on climate change.

The data cleaning comes straight from a dissertation. It is not like it is something should be super shocking. Global data is super sketchy the farther you go back in time and more interesting is super inconsistent with the published weather reports from the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 11:40 AM, JBJ said:

Fun fact: Giant snowball won't ever describe Earth.  If President Skroob vacuumed out our atmosphere and we were stuck at 0'F global surface temperature, the tropics still wouldn't freeze and water would still exist in all three phases.  We are going to have to wait for the Sun to cool before we really get the snowball going.

The sun is not going to cool.

As it begins to run out of fuel it will expand and engulf the Earth and most of the other planets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only if you're a clueless moron who doesn't understand the subject. Increased CO2 to a plant does help, to a certain extent, during the daytime. There's a threshold beyond which additional CO2 isn't used by the plant. The chemical reactions in the plant that use CO2 are powered by sunlight so all that extra CO2 is just trapping radiant heat during the nighttime, not helping the plants at all.
And here's another crucial point -- the CO2 actually has to come into contact with the plant in order for the plant to use it. Crazy, I know. Every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere that's above the trees is just trapping heat, not contributing to plant growth. And there's a lot of atmosphere above the trees. 
I doubt that was a question you thought of by yourself. Do you see now how stupid it is?


I thought of it after my father, a former farmer in rural Georgia brought it up. He had a little health scare last week so I went to see him this weekend. So then I I went and read this NASA report about it:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops/

Which talks about pros and cons. Then I thought maybe I’d get some more thoughts on the subject from the participants in this thread.

Thanks for being a fucking asshole about it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RayDog said:

Plants combined with animal herds can allow to more co2 to be sequestered in the soil. Natural sequestration produced by animal herds and plant growth could be more successful than anything else we can try.

Could we do it on a scale that would make a difference and still feed the planet? I don't know. We're certainly not doing it on a scale that makes a difference right now. 

Animal herds also produce methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. We have continued deforestation around the globe. A lot of added CO2 that would contribute to plant growth gets returned to the atmosphere when leaves fall in the autumn and decay, part of the natural carbon cycle. Increased atmospheric CO2 also gets dissolved in the oceans leading to ocean acidification. Any benefit to plant growth is so trivial compared to the overall impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2 as to be effectively meaningless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 


I thought of it after my father, a former farmer in rural Georgia brought it up. He had a little health scare last week so I went to see him this weekend. So then I I went and read this NASA report about it:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops/

Which talks about pros and cons. Then I thought maybe I’d get some more thoughts on the subject from the participants in this thread.

Thanks for being a fucking asshole about it though.

 

It's a very common trope trotted out by the deniers that global warming is actually a good thing because the added CO2 in the atmosphere is good for the plants. I've seen it a lot, even repeated by Republicans in congress, like that dolt James Inhofe. (The same guy who brought a snowball to the Senate as "proof" that global warming isn't happening.)

I'm surprised you've never encountered that line of thinking before. I don't know how that's possible. I figured you just got that question from one of the usual sources and facing questions on the subject that really shouldn't be questions makes me surly. Sorry for being a bitch about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, other than that telling us nothing, sure.

How many data points are there?  That is, if there are, say 10,000 data points/measuring station, and 10 are shown to be flawed, that will likely have little effect on the ultimate numbers.  If, on the other hand, these suspect stations and measurements are a material portion of the data, removing/adjusting them should have a material affect.  For example, if I am trying to determine the average monthly checking account balance for Americans, and I screw up one of my data transcriptions (John Smith's account balance is $5,000, but I mess up and type in $50,000), and I am only gathering data from 100 people, that error would likely materially change my "average" number.  If, on the other hand, that's one error out of 10,000 people, it will have an insignificant effect.

I'd like to see what the actually CONCLUSION should be -- the audit should remove suspect data points (high temps, low temps, it doesn't matter -- use a methodology to determine what suspect data points are, and eliminate them), then re-run the numbers.  Does the ultimate conclusion then materially differ from the original one?

A suspect data point -- while it should not be there -- does not NECESSARILY render an analysis of lots of data useless.  This analysis tells us one fact -- there is suspect data for certain points.

The burden is on the people portraying the data one way to prove it is such. Any asshole can create an hypothesis. Science, indeed broader society, cannot operate if every hypothesis is accepted without evidence.

The data, as described, is invalid. Were this any other scientific discussion, the outcome would be to throw out the findings. Because this is politics, normal rules and common sense don't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Lol at anyone who thinks we will not be eating synthetic food in 50-75 years

Fuck, so I should invest in LaCroix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

The burden is on the people portraying the data one way to prove it is such. Any asshole can create an hypothesis. Science, indeed broader society, cannot operate if every hypothesis is accepted without evidence.

The data, as described, is invalid. Were this any other scientific discussion, the outcome would be to throw out the findings. Because this is politics, normal rules and common sense don't apply.

Are you also a young Earth creationist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very common trope trotted out by the deniers that global warming is actually a good thing because the added CO2 in the atmosphere is good for the plants. I've seen it a lot, even repeated by Republicans in congress, like that dolt James Inhofe. (The same guy who brought a snowball to the Senate as "proof" that global warming isn't happening.)
I'm surprised you've never encountered that line of thinking before. I don't know how that's possible. I figured you just got that question from one of the usual sources and facing questions on the subject that really shouldn't be questions makes me surly. Sorry for being a bitch about it. 


I’m used to that sort of thing in here. I try to treat conversations in the CR like I’m sitting at the bar with the other person, but it’s usually not reciprocated.

I don’t follow the climate change stuff too closely, so no I had never heard that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 


I’m used to that sort of thing in here. I try to treat conversations in the CR like I’m sitting at the bar with the other person, but it’s usually not reciprocated.

I don’t follow the climate change stuff too closely, so no I had never heard that before.

 

Okay, so this is a matter of science that you don't understand. How do you go about learning about it and coming to an understanding of the subject? Do you approach it with respect to the scientific method? Or do you just consult with your favorite politician so they can tell you what to think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still makes me shake my head at that moron in Congress that used a snowball to demonstrate climate change is fake.    I don’t believe that even the most ardent believers in climate change believe that snow is going away over the next 100 years.  Even worse case scenarios doesn’t predict winter ending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...