Global warming

[Mintmaster]

Then again, I was asking about the last year, which isn't in that graph you linked.

It goes from 1979 to September 2010. What more do you want?

Then again, one of the most important developments over the last decade have been LiPo batteries: they would be cheap to mass-produce, are very efficient (especially compared to their weight), but require mass-production to make them cheap and useable.

A lot of battery technologies have been good enough for PHEV. You don't need the Volt's 40 mile electric range to make an impact, especially if your workplace can run some electrical sockets outside. 10 miles in the first generation will make a world of difference.

In short: this one.

That's clearly missing the most recent data.

 

[Mize]

Show me the thread and you get my credit.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=58742&highlight=clean+gun&page=2

Posts 40 & 41. Booyah.

 

[KimB]

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=58742&highlight=clean+gun&page=2

Posts 40 & 41. Booyah.

I can't help but think there's no fucking way post #40 could be the cause of post #41, but holy fuck does it look that way!

 

[Mize]

Yep.
Post #39: xxx rant
Post #40: gun cleaning
Post #41: xxx let's the door hit him in the ass on the way out

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I'm pretty sure he left because A he basically could not discuss with anyone anymore (his fault) and B he had painted himself in the corner with his predictions, meaning more (endless) ridicule was coming. No reason to stay other than to rant. Seems it was not enough, although he's been lurking.

 

[KimB]

Anyway, back on the real topic, I thought I'd post a more honest estimate of global average temperatures than the graph above:

As you can see quite clearly in this graph, the global temperature started to increase in earnest around 1975, and has just been shooting upward ever since.

The previous variations in temperature can be correlated quite strongly with solar variation, but the radiation from the Sun has basically remained constant over the period since 1975. Here's a good graph showing this:

 

[Squilliam]

@ Chalnoth. You're not really going to prove to anyone who reads from right to left that the trend is upwards.

 

[KimB]

@ Chalnoth. You're not really going to prove to anyone who reads from right to left that the trend is upwards.

Well, on another point, I just recently found out that NASA has a great page on global warming for public audiences:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[Squilliam]

Well, on another point, I just recently found out that NASA has a great page on global warming for public audiences:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I just had a look at that site. It is very frank and well written. It certainly lays it out there in a way which if any skeptic read it, he/she would have to at least respect the source if not agreeing with the content entirely. They directly address there are uncertainties. Obviously there are a few people who spent quite a bit of time thinking about what to write and how to write it on that site.

 

[KimB]

I just had a look at that site. It is very frank and well written. It certainly lays it out there in a way which if any skeptic read it, he/she would have to at least respect the source if not agreeing with the content entirely. They directly address there are uncertainties. Obviously there are a few people who spent quite a bit of time thinking about what to write and how to write it on that site.

The only way to disagree with it would be:
1. Find an error.
2. Deny reality.

Climate "skeptics" fall into category 2.

 

[Squilliam]

The only way to disagree with it would be:
1. Find an error.
2. Deny reality.

Climate "skeptics" fall into category 2.

I'll go with number 3, personally.

 

[Frank]

The only way to disagree with it would be:
1. Find an error.
2. Deny reality.

Climate "skeptics" fall into category 2.

Really.

You do know, that (for example) space-time uses a different geometry model than the classical models, do you? So, how would you react if this thread was about relativistic space-time, and someone would post:

Everyone can do the simple experiments that prove that Euclidean geometry works.

The only way to disagree with it would be:
1. Find an error.
2. Deny reality.

Relativistic space-time "believers" fall into category 2.

?


Sure, you would respond with: "No, you got it backward: relativity was a new concept, with a new theory. The disbelievers are the ones that still believe in the Newtonian ones! They have to disprove that relativity is valid!"



(That's what you did the last two times this came up.)

To which my response is: Every other time, you claim that the NEW theory has to prove itself against all the old ones. It has to reproduce all the old experiments, next to supplying new experiments that prove that it is a BETTER theory.

Make up your mind, don't cherry-pick.

... and then we get lost in the "insufficient data" department, as all the figures thrown around are created by someone or some group, by manipulating some dataset that isn't very accurate or consistent to begin with.

Which is something you always gross over and don't care about, as they're the "official" figures. They're confirmed by committees and politicians.

It's simply common sense to believe them.

Like, everyone knows that paper cups are much more ecological friendly that Styrofoam ones. It makes common sense to believe that if you don't have the background to either find that comical or sad.



Or, in other words (for the umptied time): either simply admit that you don't know it yourself, but are a firm believer of the "common sense" and official publications, or show here what new experiments are better explained by that new theory.

 

[rpg.314]

Really.

You do know, that (for example) space-time uses a different geometry model than the classical models, do you? So, how would you react if this thread was about relativistic space-time, and someone would post:

Everyone can do the simple experiments that prove that Euclidean geometry works.

The only way to disagree with it would be:
1. Find an error.
2. Deny reality.

Relativistic space-time "believers" fall into category 2.

?


Sure, you would respond with: "No, you got it backward: relativity was a new concept, with a new theory. The disbelievers are the ones that still believe in the Newtonian ones! They have to disprove that relativity is valid!"

I dunno how Chalnoth would respond to this, but I'd say that the experiments that demonstrate errors in using euclidean geometry for space time at high speeds have been done, checked, double checked, cross checked for about a century now.

I think find an error in this context means finding an error on top of everything that is known so far. AGW as a theory has met it's burden of proof quite well so far and from this point onwards, AGW sceptics carry the burden of proof.

 

[Squilliam]

So like is anyone living in a place where they can honestly state they would benefit/have benefited from a warming of the planet?

 

[KimB]

Really.

You do know, that (for example) space-time uses a different geometry model than the classical models, do you? So, how would you react if this thread was about relativistic space-time, and someone would post:

Everyone can do the simple experiments that prove that Euclidean geometry works.

The only way to disagree with it would be:
1. Find an error.
2. Deny reality.

Relativistic space-time "believers" fall into category 2.

?


Sure, you would respond with: "No, you got it backward: relativity was a new concept, with a new theory. The disbelievers are the ones that still believe in the Newtonian ones! They have to disprove that relativity is valid!"

Um, no. What I would respond with, if it weren't horribly off-topic, a list of the precise errors that scientists found around the turn of the previous century that completely undercut the previous Newtonian relativity and supported the relativity proposed by Einstein.

The point is that climate denialists don't do this. Instead they continually and repeatedly repeat a list of logical fallacies to make the science seem unreliable to the uneducated. That's it. Nobody has yet presented any results that undercut the primary findings of global climate change as summarized in the IPCC reports. Nobody.

If we were to have an argument over relativity, I could directly point you to X, Y, and Z to show that relativity is accurate. But you can't do that with climate change, because those observations/experiments simply do not exist. I can, however, point you to a wide list of experiments/observations that all support the broad conclusions of the scientific community (this is why they are the broad conclusions of the scientific community, after all, because the conclusions are backed by the evidence).

Or, in other words (for the umptied time): either simply admit that you don't know it yourself, but are a firm believer of the "common sense" and official publications, or show here what new experiments are better explained by that new theory.

Yeah, see, I've been learning quite a bit about climate change lately. And the experimental support is undeniable. We know the Earth is warming from various temperature measurements. We know that all proposed changes that could explain this warming are completely insufficient to explain it except for greenhouse gas emissions. We know that the pattern of the warming is precisely as predicted by a warming due to greenhouse gasses (the stratosphere has cooled). We know that the degree of warming is as predicted by our laboratory estimates of the greenhouse effect of CO2.

So yeah, there's really no doubt which side is right here, once you learn a bit about it.

 

[Frank]

I dunno how Chalnoth would respond to this, but I'd say that the experiments that demonstrate errors in using euclidean geometry for space time at high speeds have been done, checked, double checked, cross checked for about a century now.

I think find an error in this context means finding an error on top of everything that is known so far. AGW as a theory has met it's burden of proof quite well so far and from this point onwards, AGW sceptics carry the burden of proof.

It depends on how you look at it; the question being: what is explained better by the AGW theory than by the previous one?

Consider this: what we're experiencing at the moment is far from unprecedented, it's all part of the interaction between climate and how life influences it. A thousand years ago the same happened.

To say that the current change is unprecedented and warrants a new theory all by itself for a single decade is the same fallacy as treating weather like it is climate.

 

[KimB]

It depends on how you look at it; the question being: what is explained better by the AGW theory than by the previous one?

Consider this: what we're experiencing at the moment is far from unprecedented, it's all part of the interaction between climate and how lie influences it. A thousand years ago the same happened.

To say that the current change is unprecedented and warrants a new theory all by itself for a single decade is the same fallacy as treating weather like it is climate.

A single decade? We've been experiencing rather dramatic increases in global average temperatures since the 1970's. The vast majority of this increase in global average temperatures can be directly attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence in support of this is incontrovertible.

 

[Frank]

The point is that climate denialists don't do this. Instead they continually and repeatedly repeat a list of logical fallacies to make the science seem unreliable to the uneducated. That's it.

Ok, by that definition, I'm not a denier. I am a sceptic, but that's different.

For example, I readily agree to just about all the mechanisms and effects as outlined. I do, however, disagree with the predicted scope thereof. And I have yet to see if it requires it's own theory to explain. I expect nature to stabilize, regardless.

It irritates me highly that you keep on calling me a disbeliever, heretic and unrealistic person, and suggest that I might be a braindead moron, because I don't simply believe.

It's supposed to be science, not religion.

Nobody has yet presented any results that undercut the primary findings of global climate change as summarized in the IPCC reports. Nobody.

What do you mean with "nobody"? I do, and many others. You mean, some peer-reviewed scientific research that you happen to like? Because we had a list of peer-reviewed ones in a former thread that were deemed "unfitting".

Yeah, see, I've been learning quite a bit about climate change lately. And the experimental support is undeniable. We know the Earth is warming from various temperature measurements. We know that all proposed changes that could explain this warming are completely insufficient to explain it except for greenhouse gas emissions. We know that the pattern of the warming is precisely as predicted by a warming due to greenhouse gasses (the stratosphere has cooled). We know that the degree of warming is as predicted by our laboratory estimates of the greenhouse effect of CO2.

So yeah, there's really no doubt which side is right here, once you learn a bit about it.

Well, how about we deepened our understanding of the mechanisms involved and refined the models used to track them? Or, at least we broadened the public interested.

Yes, CO2 does matter, it does have an impact. But grok this: it's only one of many contributing factors, and the simple fact that life still exists after about a billion years, will guarantee that it will cope and keep the temperature of our planet within bounds.

Increasing the amount of CO2 is one of the most ecologically sound things we ever did.

 

[Frank]

A single decade? We've been experiencing rather dramatic increases in global average temperatures since the 1970's. The vast majority of this increase in global average temperatures can be directly attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence in support of this is incontrovertible.

You mean, just after the coldest decade of the century, where many people predicted a new ice age?

I know I had to use ice skates for a few winters to be able to get to school.

Still, that doesn't make any of that climate, it's just weather, and well within the expected deviations.

 

[Frank]

If CO2 was the only contributing factor, we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect for some time by now, and we would all be cooked. Well, except for the eskimos and people with AC everywhere.

That is to show that you cannot simply take one thing and extrapolate that blindly by itself. It's a complex system.