Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 96
  1. #31
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    It used to be warmer here; and the Earth supported much more life than it does now:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/13/sc...ted=all&src=pm

    Ostensibly, all of the hydrocarbons that we are now releasing USED to be free in the air (before being buried, and turning to oil/gas). All that C02 = warmer Earth = great herds of dinosaurs roaming the North Pole because of all the plants there were to eat!
    You're not asking the right question. Can life flourish with much higher temps? Absolutely. Can the current life on Earth flourish through a geologically quick change in climate? Probably not. The issue is not one of whether or not life will be around in a much warmer world but one on what the costs (both ecological and economical) of a changing the climate anthropologically are.

    Also, Dinosaurs didn't rely on agriculture. Your initial post in this thread pointed to an increase in agricultural production but the best information we have does not support that idea at all.
    _____________________________


  2. #32
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    101, at least you're not arguing against CO2 actually causing climate change.

  3. #33
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    27,105
    Interesting article


    Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
    Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
    The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.
    It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
    Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.
    Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
    ‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.
    'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’
    The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.
    Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
    In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
    ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’
    The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
    Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.

    The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.
    The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
    In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.
    For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz20LD9x4HD

  4. #34
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,168
    What they don't say is that the current short term warming we see may be nothing more than a normal Bond Event.
    _____________________________
    I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...




  5. #35
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    6,909
    101, at least you're not arguing against CO2 actually causing climate change.

    I am not a denier of AGW - I'm a proponent.
    _____________________________
    Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance. - Plato

  6. #36
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    6,909
    You're not asking the right question. Can life flourish with much higher temps? Absolutely. Can the current life on Earth flourish through a geologically quick change in climate? Probably not. The issue is not one of whether or not life will be around in a much warmer world but one on what the costs (both ecological and economical) of a changing the climate anthropologically are.

    Also, Dinosaurs didn't rely on agriculture. Your initial post in this thread pointed to an increase in agricultural production but the best information we have does not support that idea at all.
    Agriculture = Plants

  7. #37
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    Interesting article


    Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
    Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
    The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.
    It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
    Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.
    Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
    ‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.
    'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’
    The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.
    Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
    In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
    ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’
    The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
    Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.

    The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.
    The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
    In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.
    For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz20LD9x4HD

    I read the study a few days ago (posted on another forum and comented on through RealClimate) and it is interesting but the authors make some really poor leaps, IMO. The main one being that at high latitudes you see greater change in incoming solar energy through orbital change than you do at other places at the globe. You can't simply extrapolate the energy change at high latitudes to the rest of the world and thats what they are doing to get that really high figure of energy change.

  8. #38
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    Agriculture = Plants
    Agriculture is not merely plants. We can't grow plants everywhere and changes in climate that change these zones will facilitate changes in our infrastructure that supports it.

    I'll give you an example. If changes in precipitation patterns make it more expensive to grow crops in the California central valley due to water issues then all of a sudden food in the United States gets much more expensive. If the optimal area to grow grain in the United States shifts further north then it wastes infrastructure in place further south and necessitates building new infrastructure.

    Even if for every piece of land that was no inhospitable due to climate change you got a new piece of land that was now attractive, it would still be at quite a large economic cost and there would be lag as we adapted which would further the cost. And honestly, indications are that a 1:1 switch is a pipe dream.

    Quite honestly, I don't look at climate change from an economic perspective very often and when I do its a very shallow analysis like the above because thats not my interest and not my strong suit but nothing I read indicates its going to be a smooth transition that we'll enjoy.

  9. #39
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,168
    Why do you guys fear change?

    The earth's climate will change with or without us. If we want to mitigate AGW, the quickest way is to stop Asia from releasing all the soot they do. Until then, everything else is just a SWAG.

  10. #40
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    16,451
    101, at least you're not arguing against CO2 actually causing climate change.

    The argument is not whether CO2 contributes to climate change, but, whether CO2 is THE cause.

  11. #41
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,168
    The argument is not whether CO2 contributes to climate change, but, whether CO2 is THE cause.
    These AGW alarmists seem to never keep that strait, do they?

  12. #42
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    The argument is not whether CO2 contributes to climate change, but, whether CO2 is THE cause.
    Pretty sure that the IPCC has not said CO2 is the only cause. Pretty sure that you don't know what the argument is considering how you contradicted yourself in this very thread.

  13. #43
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,168
    Pretty sure that the IPCC has not said CO2 is the only cause. Pretty sure that you don't know what the argument is considering how you contradicted yourself in this very thread.
    Except that the IPCC AR4 attributes 1.66 watts/m^2 of the 1.6 watts/m^2 of warming during their reviewed time frame as from CO2.

    My contention is that CO2 warming is not nearly that strong. I believe Darrin's contention is the same.

  14. #44
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    Well, its a shame your contention isn't back up by the appropriate math.

  15. #45
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,168
    Well, its a shame your contention isn't back up by the appropriate math.
    I think it's a shame that you are pursuing such a politicized field.

  16. #46
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    The policy is politicized but the science is not. Scientists can typically do math.

  17. #47
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    16,451
    The policy is politicized but the science is not. Scientists can typically do math.
    1 in 16 million

  18. #48
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,168
    The policy is politicized but the science is not. Scientists can typically do math.
    1 in 16 million
    LOL....

    They politicize the climate math too.

  19. #49
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    LOL!

    I walked right into that one.

    Oh and Masters or the NCDC said 1 in 1.6 million, not 16. Still wrong, but not nearly as much as some of the stuff that was posted after.

    I actually really respect the first blogger you posted because she went back and fixed her post when it became obvious to her it was wrong. The 2nd blogger is a hack who didn't bother to revise anything when its obvious that his analysis is severely flawed.

  20. #50
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    16,451
    LOL!

    I walked right into that one.

    Oh and Masters or the NCDC said 1 in 1.6 million, not 16. Still wrong, but not nearly as much as some of the stuff that was posted after.

    I actually really respect the first blogger you posted because she went back and fixed her post when it became obvious to her it was wrong. The 2nd blogger is a hack who didn't bother to revise anything when its obvious that his analysis is severely flawed.
    I don't see what is flawed about the 2nd analysis. He simply used a 13-month moving window and counted how many months in that span ranked in the top third of the historical record. He did conclude that it is a rare event, but nowhere near lotto odds.

  21. #51
    Veteran Thompson's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    2,292
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

    Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...
    _____________________________
    When the Okies left for California they raised the I.Q. level of both states.

  22. #52
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    There's errors everywhere in what he did. First of all, Master's comments were that if the climate wasn't warming, the odds for the 13 months in a row in the upper 3rd would be 1 in 1.6 million.

    So how can you use the dataset of a warming climate and then judge by a distribution on what the odds would be for a situation that isn't represented by the dataset? Its like me saying that days with lows below freezing are common in the winter therefor re not rare in the summer.

    But, lets assume that's not an issue. Then there's the issue of whether or not the distribution is valid. Poisson processes require event independence. In other words, a month being in the upper third of its distribution cannot affect the next month. The blog you linked yesterday used the very fact that there is an correlation between each month's temp to show why the initial calculation (simply 1/3 raised to the 13th power) was wrong because there WAS a correlation between the events. That immediately disqualifies this type of distribution.

    Furthermore, if we disregard THAT error, then there's the issue of his lambda value. In the equation, lambda represents the mean of the function. The mean of the number of events in a group of 13 being in their top third is 4.33 (simply 13/3) so why is his lambda value 5.xx ( can't remember the exact amount).

    I also have issues with the way he came up with everything, but by this point I'm just being redundant. Its pretty shitty statistical analysis.

  23. #53
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,411
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

    Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...
    That article is 5 years old. Now google "BEST Decadal Variations" or "Royal Society Solar Climate" and get back to us.
    _____________________________
    "All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell

    "Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken

    Officially Noted By Agloco

    Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas

  24. #54
    Believe. Kidd K's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    1,921
    The fact that idiots are still arguing that there's no climate change happening is just embarrassing. (by climate change I mean the new name for "global warming").

    I'm just 27, but having lived in the same general area my whole life (within about 30 miles), I can say with certainty that the seasons are changing, and are getting hotter.

    It used to actually be cold in October here (I live in northeastern Illinois, near Chicago). Now it almost never is.

    It used to ALWAYS snow before the end of the year. The latest I remember it snowing was Christmas Eve. Last year, it didn't even snow until February. And it only snowed enough to where I had to shovel, just 3 times, the fewest I can recall.

    It fuckin RAINED in March. . .I've never seen it rain in March before.

    It was over 70 degrees for a whole week in March, the month where usually there's snow on the ground for all 31 days of the month.

    It got so hot this summer with my thermometer maxed out at 120 for days back to back to back to back, my house's AC barely seems adequate anymore. I'm going to buy an additional air conditioner for next summer, because it's probably going to be even worse.


    Yeah, I'm just remembering about 23 years of weather, but it's sure as hell changed a LOT. Science is also, you know, your friend. It tells you stuff, when they're not funded by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome being that there is no global warming (i.e. the ones mainly causing it, and wanting more deregulations from the government so they can retain or increase their gigantic profit margin).


    chance of dumb rednecks giving a shit, zero
    Sad but true. Too bad rednecks have been taught to vote. Someone needs to teach them to start voting in their own interests too.

  25. #55
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    53,632
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

    Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...
    The solar output is measured from satellites and has been dropping relative to previous solar cycles. I have yet to see evidence that Mars is actually warming but even if it was that doesn't mean there's an increase in solar output. Orbital variation can change the amount of insolation on any planet independent of any actual change in solar output.

    But yeah, thanks for posting a 2007 article 5 years later because this shit hasn't been debunked quite a bit in that time.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rming-too.html
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/
    http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...limatic_change

    Despite the absence of a time series for Martian global temperatures, K. I. Abdusamatov has proposed that "parallel global warmings" observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth can only be a consequence of the same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[73] While some climate change skeptics take this as proof that humans are not causing climate change, Abdusamatov's hypothesis has not been accepted by the scientific community. His assertions have not been published in the peer-reviewed literature, and have been dismissed by other scientists, who have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[74] Other scientists have proposed that the observed variations are caused by irregularities in the orbit of Mars or a possible combination of solar and orbital effects.[75]

  26. #56
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    16,451
    The fact that idiots are still arguing that there's no climate change happening is just embarrassing
    Indeed. That would be embarrassing if people were arguing that.

  27. #57
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    36,168
    There's errors everywhere in what he did. First of all, Master's comments were that if the climate wasn't warming, the odds for the 13 months in a row in the upper 3rd would be 1 in 1.6 million.
    But almost every one agrees the climate has been warming over our recorded history, so why even do such an analysis?

  28. #58
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,411
    Indeed. That would be embarrassing if people were arguing that.
    Dude you have been arguing that there has been no warming in the pst 15 years. Your sophistry is deplorable.

  29. #59
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    380
    Good link, Darrin. Those are some valid points about how the unlikelyhood is overestimated through those methods.

    That being said, the new numbers still show how incredibly unlikely the situation is so when taken in the proper context I think every point that was made about how anomalous the recent string of hot months is will stand.
    So yeah, while less than 1 in 100,000 isn't exactly 1 in 16 million, it still is a very very very rare event and really still makes every point that was being made based on the previous number. The chances of Darrin pointing that out? Probably lower than both of those figures.

    This is the truth. It's finally getting blatantly obvious.

    Should never have reached this point. Greenhouse gas = hotter, period. Venus is a shitload hotter than it should be because of greenhouse gasses.

    We knew about this already. Stupid people like WC are dumbing down society.

    The noble thing for any person conflicted would be to say, well we're addicted to oil and we need to figure that out first.

  30. #60
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    380


    Sad but true. Too bad rednecks have been taught to vote. Someone needs to teach them to start voting in their own interests too.
    Not likely

    What it comes down to is that they are just vile beasts that should be kept in cages. All the know are guns and looting resources in the name of white pigmented Jesus.

    You can't fix stupid.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •