What happened to Global Warming?

By on June 20, 2013 9:54:31 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

ZombiesRus5

Join Date 02/2009
+321

What happened to Global Warming?

When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.

Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in

 

I'd like some global warming back...

 

2913 Replies +1
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:40:05 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Kantok,
My problem is with the immediacy of it all (

The "immediacy" comes from the viewpoint that we cannot solve the problem instantly.

The longer we wait, the less time we will have to solve the problem.

So it's mostly a matter of time.

Someone sets an arbitrary target, like, let's not let levels of CO2 increase to more than 500 ppm, to avoid too much melting of the ice sheets and too much rise of sea level.

At a rate of increase of 2 ppm/year, that gives us 50 years to solve the problem.

And 10 years is a lot on such a timescale.

 

So instead of saying "what's the solution", perhaps you should indicate what levels of CO2 you think are acceptable, and why.

(Think about temperatures, climate shift, sea level rise... what kind of levels do you think are acceptable) ?

 

 

Quoting Kantok,
We simply don't know the system well enough yet.

Where do you get that from?

It's possible to predict storms pretty well a few days into the future. I think the models are pretty awesome.

Certainly they are a lot better than 20 years ago.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:44:38 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting GeomanNL,
Where do you get that from?

From banging his head on the wall repeatedly maybe?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:46:54 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

To me, it's pure denialism on the level of creationism, faked moon landings, truthers, cigarettes don't cause cancer, vaccines cause autism, whatever conspiracy based, evidence free, anti-science issue du jour you want to choose from to say otherwise.

Did I mention this is just bullshit?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:56:52 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Daiwa,
From banging his head on the wall repeatedly maybe?

Wtf is that about.

And what does it really matter if the models are a bit off.

The only thing that's important is that we get an indication of statistical properties of future precipitation levels, storm frequencies etcetera.

Who gives a damn about the details, they're just not important for such a study.

 

Of course you can insist that if you cannot recreate a storm perfectly that the whole model is wrong, but that's just so ... harsh.

If you think like that, you can just as well say that we know absolutely nothing about anything. Because there are no models that can predict anything perfectly.

I think such thinking is just too easy.

It's better to think like this: well okay, so we know the models aren't exact and there are some problems with it. What does that mean for our results, how reliable are they and what can we learn from it?

It's about robustness of the results.

It's not about details that are a bit off... who cares about those!

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:58:36 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting GeomanNL,

Someone sets an arbitrary target, like, let's not let levels of CO2 increase to more than 500 ppm, to avoid too much melting of the ice sheets and too much rise of sea level.

At a rate of increase of 2 ppm/year, that gives us 50 years to solve the problem.


It's possible to predict storms pretty well a few days into the future. I think the models are pretty awesome.

Do you not see the problem here?  We have 50 years to solve a problem based on scientists' predictions.  Those same scientists can barely predict storms a few days into the future (which is pretty awesome).  

If they don't understand the variables that make the system function well enough to do more than make accurate predictions a few days into the future why on earth should we alter the global economy based on their 50 year predictions?  

Their predictions on what will happen is a complete crap shoot once you get out passed a few days.  Even allowing for some randomness, how you extrapolate that into an ability to predict accurately what is going to happen on a global scale 50 or 100 years from now?  It's ludicrous. 

We simply don't know enough.  Or, in denier terms, the science ISN'T settled yet. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 11:05:05 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting GeomanNL,

It's possible to predict storms pretty well a few days into the future. I think the models are pretty awesome.

Quoting GeomanNL,

And what does it really matter if the models are a bit off.
<snip>
Who gives a damn about the details, they're just not important for such a study.
 

Wildly alter the global economy and concentrate authority into the hands of unelected experts RIGHT THIS MOMENT because my study says this planet will self destruct in... well, the damn details aren't that important.  Who cares if the models are a bit off. 

Congratulations.  You win the thread. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 11:19:36 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting GeomanNL,
Wtf is that about.

That's OK.  Didn't expect you to get it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 11:29:59 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Kantok,


We simply don't know enough.  Or, in denier terms, the science ISN'T settled yet. 

 

 

Because Jesus.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 11:51:22 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting Nichtganz,
Because Jesus.

As opposed to "Because Mann"?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 12:23:07 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Daiwa,


As opposed to "Because Mann"?

I prefer:  "Because Gore".  

Weak double entendre and all.  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 12:49:00 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Kantok,
I said it was you trying to invalidate my points without having to address them by pretending to be the only one concerned about cold hard logical reality

I'm happy to address your points but until this post of yours you didn't have any points to address from our exchange other than trying to imply or suggest what I and/or others thought about a single storm season.

Quoting Kantok,
Likewise, the IPCC is a political arm of the most highly politicized and corrupt international body going.

It isn't a political arm of anything. It's the scientific arm of various political bodies though. You writing off its scientific conclusions because you feel various political bodies are corrupt is facile. The IPCC doesn't do the research - it reports on the findings of all the peer reviewed and published research. Calling it corrupt is just an ad hominem so you can try and brush off and not address the actual findings.

Quoting Kantok,
the science isn't settled

Science is rarely "settled". It's inherently skeptical and self-correcting over time. The IPCC conclusions are the current best working understanding of the situation.

Quoting Kantok,
I'm suspicious of anything who's chief argument is a call to get in line with the consensus, as if consensus is its own supporting argument.

Consensus or appeal to authority is not a good argument I agree. That's not what people are saying though. They are saying there is massive amount of evidence supporting AGW - thus the international scientific consensus.

Quoting Kantok,
There are NEVER concrete plans to solve it.

Even if this were true, it's completely irrelevant to whether AGW is real or not. Why would you put this out there as an objection to AGW? I have noticed that many people's objections to the science stem from their distaste over some of the economic/political consequences of various proposals though. It's pointless to discuss "what to do" if people do not agree AGW is real though. It's a huge separate topic from the science/evidence but some methods/ideas have already been discussed in this thread a little bit though.

Generally speaking, it's everyone's responsibility. It's ridiculous to blame oil and gas companies. We are responsible as the consumers of their products as well. It's an interesting challenge. It's a case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons on an unprecedented scale. In game theory, the countries of the world need to find a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium but they can't even keep agreements or sit at the same table to talk in many cases. We are facing a global issue that requires cooperation and synchronization. Even if one country has some genius entrepreneurial breakthroughs in energy, coupled with government support and citizen acceptance and lifestyle changes, etc. it will be meaningless if most other countries don't follow suit. You can see us flailing about still with this tribal mindset trying to come to grips (and denying its a problem is one way of coping) with a uniquely global problem. I think it's because most people in the world do not yet experience it as a problem. If this were an alien invasion, suddenly our tribal mindset and inertia globally would evaporate. But it isn't. It's more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog 

Personally I don't feel alarmist about it either because I don't live on a little Pacific atoll that is sinking or in the path of super storms or as a polar bear in the Arctic. It's still just an intellectual reality to me. But I have no doubt AGW is real and that given enough time - maybe not until a couple future generations from now - a lot more people will experience it as real. I can vote for a politician who accepts it is real. I can drive less and bike more. I can fly less for vacations. I can try to counter denialist fallacies. I can speak with friends and family about their thoughts/actions on it. I can purchase foods and consumer goods made and grown locally. I can invest in companies that are exploring alternate fuel and power options. But it's still going to require a more systemic approach. Governments will have to be involved at some level. I don't think it will be all bad necessarily. The opening up of the NorthWest passage in the Arctic has potential for good things for both trade and wildlife. But acidification of the ocean in general kinda sucks...

Edit: naming/editing the links failed but you get the idea...

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 1:21:15 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Kantok,
Their predictions on what will happen is a complete crap shoot once you get out passed a few days. Even allowing for some randomness, how you extrapolate that into an ability to predict accurately what is going to happen on a global scale 50 or 100 years from now? It's ludicrous.

All you've got to say is this: [a] we cannot predict a single storm perfectly and [b]  therefore we cannot make any conclusions about the general statistical properties of the weather system of this globe.

I just can't see any causal connection between those 2 points.

 

But I suppose the scientists themselves can't agree on things yet... there are still conflicting models predicting different things even on a statistical level ...

oh well, I suppose we should wait a little longer, hopefully in 10 years time the models will be a bit better. Although it seems that one thing is fairly certain to occur: that there's going to be more rainfall from the big storms.

 

 

This article sheds some light on the history of hurricanes (for the past 2,500 years, in Puerto Rico):

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/coastal/publications/pdfs/Woodruff_et_al_G3_draft1.pdf

And this one, more variability in Florida:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322711001472

Paleotempestology

 

On a side note, this is an interesting article on the influence between plants and clouds on the continents.

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-climate-carbon-dioxide-clouds.html

The conclusion is pretty simple: the plants evaporate less water and therefore there are fewer clouds.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 2:44:55 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

I have avoided this thread, because, well, it is so frustrating to deal with denialists.  But, FYI, there is a difference between "weather" and "climate".  Weather deals with immediate weather conditions. "Climate" deals with weather pattern over time.  The fact that immediate weather is not as predictable as we like does not mean that statistical modeling over time is useless.

And, sure, it is certainly conceivably possible that new information could come along to call into question AGW.  But, the reasonable thing to do is to go with the preponderance of evidence that you have to work with.  There is a clear preponderance of evidence that AGW is real, and thus the only reasonable, rational thing to do is to accept it at least until some point in the future that evidence causes a change in where the preponderance of evidence points.

Even if your a denialist, someone that has doubts of AGW, I can't for the life of me figure out any rational basis for just pretending there is nothing to AGW while staring at massive preponderance of evidence in favor of its existence. Surely, even if one has some doubt over AGW, the rational thing to do would be to err on the side of caution.

The facts are pretty clear.  Earth has been warming.  CO2 and other greenhouse gases act as heat insulators.  World ice levels have been decreasing.  Oceans have been getting warmer and more acidic.  Previous periods of high temperatures on earth have been strongly linked to CO2 levels. No alternative hypothesis such as sun energy output, volcano activity, etc have supporting evidence.

These are plain, simple facts.  Denialists have nothing to offer but simply denials of demonstrated evidence.  Period.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 2:46:49 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting caseagainstfaith,
I have avoided this thread, because, well, it is so frustrating to deal with denialists. But, FYI, there is a difference between "weather" and "climate". Weather deals with immediate weather conditions. "Climate" deals with weather pattern over time. The fact that immediate weather is not as predictable as we like does not mean that statistical modeling over time is useless.

And, sure, it is certainly conceivably possible that new information could come along to call into question AGW. But, the reasonable thing to do is to go with the preponderance of evidence that you have to work with. There is a clear preponderance of evidence that AGW is real, and thus the only reasonable, rational thing to do is to accept it at least until some point in the future that evidence causes a change in where the preponderance of evidence points.

Even if your a denialist, someone that has doubts of AGW, I can't for the life of me figure out any rational basis for just pretending there is nothing to AGW while staring at massive preponderance of evidence in favor of its existence.

The facts are pretty clear. Earth has been warming. CO2 and other greenhouse gases act as heat insulators. World ice levels have been decreasing. Oceans have been getting warmer and more acidic. Previous periods of high temperatures on earth have been strongly linked to CO2 levels. No alternative hypothesis such as sun energy output, volcano activity, etc have supporting evidence.

These are plain, simple facts. Denialists have nothing to offer but simply denials of demonstrated evidence. Period.

Have a Karma for that, well written comment

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 2:57:01 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting caseagainstfaith,
I have avoided this thread, because, well, it is so frustrating to deal with denialists.

Very wise of you, and it's also addictive. I've tried to stop but I just couldn't.

 

What kind of CO2 level do you think is acceptable?

 

(To be honest I think 400 ppm is already the limit, because it's similar to a period of much higher sea level and a 600 ppm level will be disastrous. I'm afraid my country will flood in the (far) future. http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx)

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 3:19:05 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting caseagainstfaith,

I have avoided this thread, because, well, it is so frustrating to deal with denialists.  But, FYI, there is a difference between "weather" and "climate".  Weather deals with immediate weather conditions. "Climate" deals with weather pattern over time.  The fact that immediate weather is not as predictable as we like does not mean that statistical modeling over time is useless.

And, sure, it is certainly conceivably possible that new information could come along to call into question AGW.  But, the reasonable thing to do is to go with the preponderance of evidence that you have to work with.  There is a clear preponderance of evidence that AGW is real, and thus the only reasonable, rational thing to do is to accept it at least until some point in the future that evidence causes a change in where the preponderance of evidence points.

Even if your a denialist, someone that has doubts of AGW, I can't for the life of me figure out any rational basis for just pretending there is nothing to AGW while staring at massive preponderance of evidence in favor of its existence. Surely, even if one has some doubt over AGW, the rational thing to do would be to err on the side of caution.

The facts are pretty clear.  Earth has been warming.  CO2 and other greenhouse gases act as heat insulators.  World ice levels have been decreasing.  Oceans have been getting warmer and more acidic.  Previous periods of high temperatures on earth have been strongly linked to CO2 levels. No alternative hypothesis such as sun energy output, volcano activity, etc have supporting evidence.

These are plain, simple facts.  Denialists have nothing to offer but simply denials of demonstrated evidence.  Period.

More and more "I am right."  So I'll say again, as I've tried previously.  

I'll stipulate that you are exactly right.  Everything you have said is right and I, in my "denialism" (what an asshat of a phrase) am completely wrong.  

What do you propose to do about it? Give me a realistic solution.  If you can, you'd be the first. 

And, by the way, if the problem is as grave as all of you think it is this:

Quoting Ekko_Tek,

Generally speaking, it's everyone's responsibility. It's ridiculous to blame oil and gas companies. We are responsible as the consumers of their products as well. It's an interesting challenge. It's a case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons on an unprecedented scale. In game theory, the countries of the world need to find a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium but they can't even keep agreements or sit at the same table to talk in many cases. We are facing a global issue that requires cooperation and synchronization. Even if one country has some genius entrepreneurial breakthroughs in energy, coupled with government support and citizen acceptance and lifestyle changes, etc. it will be meaningless if most other countries don't follow suit. You can see us flailing about still with this tribal mindset trying to come to grips (and denying its a problem is one way of coping) with a uniquely global problem. I think it's because most people in the world do not yet experience it as a problem. If this were an alien invasion, suddenly our tribal mindset and inertia globally would evaporate. But it isn't. It's more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog 

Personally I don't feel alarmist about it either because I don't live on a little Pacific atoll that is sinking or in the path of super storms or as a polar bear in the Arctic. It's still just an intellectual reality to me. But I have no doubt AGW is real and that given enough time - maybe not until a couple future generations from now - a lot more people will experience it as real. I can vote for a politician who accepts it is real. I can drive less and bike more. I can fly less for vacations. I can try to counter denialist fallacies. I can speak with friends and family about their thoughts/actions on it. I can purchase foods and consumer goods made and grown locally. I can invest in companies that are exploring alternate fuel and power options. But it's still going to require a more systemic approach. Governments will have to be involved at some level. I don't think it will be all bad necessarily. The opening up of the NorthWest passage in the Arctic has potential for good things for both trade and wildlife. But acidification of the ocean in general kinda sucks...
 

Isn't a solution.  It's commendable, certainly, for trying to live your beliefs, but it isn't a SOLUTION.  

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 3:51:27 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Well, I am right, in so far as what I said is measurable facts.

But, you are right that an actual solution is difficult.  Sure, I have added insulation in my home.  But, I still like to live in comfort.  I live in Houston and use A/C.  When I bought my A/C unit 13 years ago, the efficiency rating of 13 was good, but, not that high by today's standards.

So, yes, I am part of the problem and I don't have a real solution.

I for one am NOT opposed to nuclear power. It has issues, no doubt.  And it has a carbon footprint due to construction and maintenance.  But, next generation units, including thorium, could potentially improve efficiency and decrease carbon footprint. So, I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear.

But, still not a complete solution.  I agree with you there.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 4:42:50 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting caseagainstfaith,
Well, I am right, in so far as what I said is measurable facts.

Denialists like to prove their point with saying all the data from the world is faked by the governments, because it is the interest of governments (and I still have no idea why they say this that it is in their interest to do so...).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 4:55:14 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting Ekko_Tek,
They are saying there is massive amount of evidence supporting AGW - thus the international scientific consensus.

A 'massive amount of evidence' which has failed to account for or explain reality can be as massive as it wants.  Furthermore, whether one accepts or is skeptical of that 'massive amount of evidence' it has more to do with choosing who gets to piss in the AGW ocean than 'science'.  Lots of charlatans, a la Al Whore, lining up for a shot at aiming their cocks at the beach.  For a tidy sum of course, paid by us unwashed denialists, whether we like it or not.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 4:59:08 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting Turchany,
Denialists like to prove their point with saying all the data from the world is faked by the governments

And AGW Evangelists like to prove their point by just making shit up.  Such as the quoted statement.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 5:10:22 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Daiwa,
And AGW Evangelists like to prove their point by just making shit up. Such as the quoted statement.

So you are not thinking the data has been altered in favour of Global warming by the governments? Someone here likes to say this.. I forgot who.

EDIT: and by the way data is objective, and so are the trendlines you can put on them. This is not "making shit up" putting trendlines on temperature values..

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 5:21:02 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

What data has been 'faked' has not been 'faked' by governments, just 'scientists'.  But governments are quite willing, sometimes eager, to use any & all justifications, falsified or otherwise, if they can serve their broader interest in growing government.

And I guess you just don't get the absurdity of the statement I quoted from you.  Or it was intentionally absurd, which is OK by me.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 5:26:22 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Daiwa,
What data has been 'faked' has not been 'faked' by governments, just 'scientists'. But governments are quite willing, sometimes eager, to use any & all justifications, falsified or otherwise, if they can serve their broader interest in growing government.

Then what are we talking about? If the data has really been faked, then we will never know who is right, and noone can prove anything.. Though I still think this faking data thing is a kind of conspiracy theory and I don't really like those, as these can never be proven by anything unquestionable.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 6:11:20 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Daiwa,

And AGW Evangelists like to prove their point by just making shit up.  Such as the quoted statement.

Well, it would be wrong to generalize that all denialists claim government conspiracy.  Some do make this claim.  And, for the record, I have no doubt that governments are quite willing to lie to further their agenda.  Still, the idea that most major governments would be "in on" this thing, and  manage to get at least most climate scientists on board strains credibility.

The more common conspiracy theory I hear is that scientists fake the data for the purpose of getting government grants.  Of course this also strains credibility.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 6:15:41 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

There is no coordinated conspiracy in the criminal sense, although the Mann/East Anglia business came close.  Just a shared ideology and willingness to shade the truth, if convenient, in its furtherance.  And to ignore or suppress non-conforming reality.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #101114  walnut1   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000781   Page Render Time: