- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:05 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
CO2 radiative forcing isn't linear.
Point worth making. It's logrithmic with changes in concentration.
If you're going to go all engineer nerd on folks, why not explain the relationship a little? Folks might learn something.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:12 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
• The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming, • It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, • Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, • The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, • Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, • Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans. Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:17 am to Duke
quote:Which would be reassuring if emissions were linear
Point worth making. It's logrithmic with changes in concentration.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 10:18 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:18 am to Dale51
quote:
Global warming: Fake news becomes no news By Daniel G. Jones For decades, we've heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming. Then, in 2009, a hack of climate researchers' emails at the University of East Anglia indicated that things weren't quite on the up-and-up, science-wise. Climatologists had massaged global temperature records to bolster their claims of man-made global warming, and they had destroyed emails to skirt FOIA requests. "Climategate," as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news. It happened again about a month ago. On February 4, Dr. John Bates, "senior scientist" at NOAA's temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise. He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had "breached [NOAA's] own rules on scientific integrity when [he] published [a] sensational but flawed report" and rushed it into print in order to influence global leaders at the U.N. Climate Conference in Paris in 2015. That paper, called the "Pausebuster," cited new data purporting to show that the hiatus in global warming since 1998 had not occurred. According to Dr. Bates, however, Dr. Karl had put his "thumb on the scale" by releasing new data that were "misleading" and "unverified." Furthermore, it is unlikely ever to be verified: Dr. Bates also reported that the computer used to process the data "had suffered a complete failure." Hello, Climategate 2.0!
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:19 am to Dale51
If you're going to just spam copypasta the very least you could do is break it into paragraphs and link the source
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:20 am to Iosh
It's better than a linear relationship when you think about the rate of emissions. Why so negative?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:20 am to Iosh
quote:
If you're going to just spam copypasta the very least you could do is break it into paragraphs and link the source
So you don't like the format?..So what? What do you find to be false information? Anything?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:21 am to Duke
quote:Ive learned that most people aren't actually interested in learning the science behind it. They just want political "gotchas".
why not explain the relationship a little? Folks might learn something.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:22 am to Iosh
quote:Which would be scary if CO2 was the only determinant of temperature.
Which would be reassuring if emissions were linear
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 10:28 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:30 am to Gaspergou202
quote:Giving a precise date is a mug's game, since emissions rose gradually over time. Nobody's gonna be able to pin down THE year human forcings overtook natural forcings, although I think you could make the case for 1960 as a late boundary since that was this century's local maximum for solar irradiance.
Now to your chart. Where would you peg the start of the modern warming period? Your right the only concrete date for a cause is the volcanic eruptions. But based on your graph the warming starts at leased in the middle of the 19th century not the 20th. Based on your graph 1800 is reasonable. I'm biased to 1820 because it's the first date I learned for the end of the cold and start of the new. The paper I referenced picks 1850 and I don't think you could argue no warming until 1950 on your chart.
My argument to you is that climate change is normal and the global temperatures never are the same century to century. I can bring massive evidence that the current cycle is a natural cycle!
The salient point is that there aren't any natural forcings that can explain the sharp rise between then and now. I'm curious what "massive evidence" you would bring to bear on this. Nobody disputes that past temperature fluctuations have been caused by solar or volcanic forcings, this is discussed extensively in the IPCC. But we have proxy evidence pointing to natural forces. Now, even with direct observation, there's none.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:30 am to Taxing Authority
Well I'd appreciate the effort.
Though, the physics here isn't exactly light reading or explaining. Radiation's fourth order dependance with Temperature. CO2s relationship with forcing. Other greenhouse contributors. You start getting into that eyes glaze over math real quick.
FWIW, I'm of the mind humans are having some impact due to rapidly increasing CO2 concentration. That being said, China and India aren't going to get to a point where more efficient engines/processes are economically viable without burning a lot of hydrocarbons up. The research on the catalasys and energy side of things goes faster with cheap and abundant energy available. If you take the view this is a problem, the only realistic solution is innovation requiring burning more HCs.
Though, the physics here isn't exactly light reading or explaining. Radiation's fourth order dependance with Temperature. CO2s relationship with forcing. Other greenhouse contributors. You start getting into that eyes glaze over math real quick.
FWIW, I'm of the mind humans are having some impact due to rapidly increasing CO2 concentration. That being said, China and India aren't going to get to a point where more efficient engines/processes are economically viable without burning a lot of hydrocarbons up. The research on the catalasys and energy side of things goes faster with cheap and abundant energy available. If you take the view this is a problem, the only realistic solution is innovation requiring burning more HCs.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:32 am to Dale51
quote:Most of it. But you have a tendency to simply ignore when a point has been disproved and move on to another one, so when you shovel 10 bad talking points you cribbed from some blog in a single text bomb I'm disinclined to address it since it will be met with another 10 talking points and not, say, self-reflection on your information diet.
What do you find to be false information? Anything?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:37 am to Taxing Authority
quote:You name a forcing, it's probably been increasing exponentially. Methane?
Which would be scary if CO2 was the only determinant of temperature.
N2O?
Just about the only ones that HAVEN'T shown this pattern are the natural forcings and CFCs (which we controlled using a binding international treaty, something most of this forum rules out from first principles).
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 10:38 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:50 am to Iosh
quote:1- concentration != forcing.
You name a forcing, it's probably been increasing exponentially
2- concentrations aren't the only non-linearity in the system.
Oh, and you should add decreases in particulates to your list.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 10:51 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 10:58 am to Taxing Authority
quote:These posts where you hint at the existence of a point rather than making them are also annoying.
1- concentration != forcing.
2- concentrations aren't the only non-linearity in the system.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:10 am to Iosh
quote:Good grief. Do you not understand
These posts where you hint at the existence of a point rather than making them are also annoying.
quote:
concentration != forcing.
Or are you intentionally trying to mislead people by posting a "scary" graph?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:24 am to Taxing Authority
I understand it fine. I don't understand why it's relevant.
Do you think that if I posted a graph where the Y-axis was flat tons and not concentration that it would be linear?
Do you think a linear increase in the emission amount leads to an exponentially increasing concentration?
Do you think these graphs are difficult to find?
Do you think I'm not looking at one right now?
Do you think I'm not posting it because it's linear? Or do you think I'm not posting it because I'm making a point about how god damned obnoxious it is when one side provides arguments and data and the other merely cross-examines?
Is this particularly annoying when the cross-examiner makes irrelevant meta-observations speculating as to your motives?
Do you think that if I posted a graph where the Y-axis was flat tons and not concentration that it would be linear?
Do you think a linear increase in the emission amount leads to an exponentially increasing concentration?
Do you think these graphs are difficult to find?
Do you think I'm not looking at one right now?
Do you think I'm not posting it because it's linear? Or do you think I'm not posting it because I'm making a point about how god damned obnoxious it is when one side provides arguments and data and the other merely cross-examines?
Is this particularly annoying when the cross-examiner makes irrelevant meta-observations speculating as to your motives?
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:28 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:36 am to Iosh
quote:Then you don't understand it.
I understand it fine. I don't understand why it's relevant.
quote:Ypu've completely missed the point. You posted a graph of CONCENTRATION which is not 1:1 a measure of FORCING. So your "scary" graphs are not an indicator of forcing (much less temperature). At all. You've completely left out the relationship.
Do you think that if I posted a graph where the Y-axis was flat tons and not concentration that it would be linear?
I could post a graph of the number of emails created and it would be all hockey stick looking and "scary". But it would not be indicative of a relationship to termerature.
quote:I have no idea why you're posting it. That's why I asked.
Do you think I'm not posting it because it's linear?
quote:Start any time. And don't equate concentration and forcing. That isn't very "scientific".
I'm making a point about how god damned obnoxious it is when one side provides arguments and data and the other merely cross-examines?
quote:
Is this particularly annoying when the cross-examiner makes irrelevant meta-observations speculating as to your motives?
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:40 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:41 am to Taxing Authority
I swear to god if you pull a CptBengal here you're getting nothing but GIF replies from here on out.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News