Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-09-2013, 01:00 PM  
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Black for Palestine
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $23682
The climate of the past decade. Anybody want to guess where it ranks historically?

Did you guess warmest since we've recorded it? Because you're right.

According to the World Meteorological Association's recent report on the past decade's climate.

Here's the forward/summary.



The chart:



We haven't had a climate brouhaha in a while.

What's our line these days, conservatives?

We believe climate change exists, right? Do we agree that humans are the preeminent cause?

Do you have any ideas you personally subscribe to as to what can/should be done?
Posts: 46,869
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:10 PM   #136
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $10893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger View Post
Right, and exactly how many samples have been taken and from where? Really enough and from enough places to come up with an accurate average for the planet? If so, what's the + and -?
Take a look:

Nasa Datasets of all types: http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/KeywordSea...arameters|Home
Ice core data sets: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/
Paleoclimatic specific data sets: http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/KeywordSea...b3#maincontent

If you're just talking about ice cores, those have been taken from just about every viable location possible. Which is of course limited to where ice has been standing for thousands of years. But ice cores are quite accurate, and have provided a ton of data other than just CO2 levels. Particularly, it's been the dust, air bubbles, and other stuff trapped in the ice that's given us much more usable data. Then that data is compared to other forms of dating, to give an overall average.

Every method certainly has its limitations. Which is why they incorporate many different methods that are completely independent of each other.

Quote:
Over the last 800,000 years the evidence becomes more robust because several methods are available:
  • layers of ice crystals in ice cores (to 800,000 years ago)
  • layers in stalagmites and stalagtites (to 500,000 years)
  • ratios of beryllium isotopes from dust in ice cores (to 80,000 years)
  • annual layers of particles in lakes called varve analysis (to 13,000 years)
  • bands of seasonal growth in trees called dendrochronology (to 10,000 years
  • numbers of sun spots (to 1,700 years)

Each of these measurements is obviously a proxy for real climate and they each have limitations.

One significant advantage is that they are all independent of each other.
__________________
Posts: 26,186
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:22 PM   #137
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $10893
Quote:
Originally Posted by notorious View Post
I think that we should do everything in our power to move toward clean energy, but I just roll my eyes when I see a chart that goes past 100-150 years of history.
You shouldn't roll your eyes. I wouldn't call paleoclimatic research exact by any means, but they incorporate enough different independent methods to have a very good approximation going back a long ways. It's not exact science. It's meant to plot a pattern more so than anything.

Instead of rolling our eyes to this type of data, let's do everything we can to further validate or invalidate it in every way we can.

And regarding the last 100+ years, we do have very good data on that. According to NASA, there is a 97% consensus among reputable climate scientists that man has contributed to climate change since the Industrial revolution.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
__________________
Posts: 26,186
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:26 PM   #138
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $10893
Oh a humorous note... the North Pole is now under water...

Seriously...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3652373.html
__________________
Posts: 26,186
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:39 PM   #139
loochy loochy is offline
That's what she said.
 
loochy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TECKSIS
Casino cash: $11485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
Oh a humorous note... the North Pole is now under water...

Seriously...
That's not actually at the north pole you know...
__________________
Please note that any racist, sexist, or otherwise outrageous opinions expressed in this post have been made for comedic or trolling purposes only and are not the actual opinions of loochy or any affiliated entities. Reader discretion is advised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by big nasty kcnut View Post
yeah i may be a retard but I'll be the one banging your girlfriend when you're out with your friends.
Posts: 19,378
loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.loochy is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:51 PM   #140
Dayze Dayze is offline
Resident Glue Sniffer
 
Dayze's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park
Casino cash: $17283
I hope Santa has flood insurance.
__________________
Life is 99% inspiration, 1% Perspiration, and 1% Attention to Detial.
Posts: 27,227
Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dayze is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 03:37 PM   #141
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $10893
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
A well reasoned and almost perfect post on the subject! Posts like this restore my faith that there are still rational people out there.

I say "almost perfect" because though your graph is completely accurate on CO2 levels recent data shows that CO2 has a MUCH smaller effect on climate and temperature then we thought. Like you said, there's still a ton of things we are just barely able to understand at this point.
What CO2 data have you been looking at? I'd be interested in that. The gist of what I've been reading has said that CO2 levels in the past haven't shown to be a dominant force driving climate change, but that over the past century or so that's all changed and now CO2 is a major contributor to climate change.

Here's a decent explanation of it:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...termediate.htm

Quote:
So we see that climate isn't controlled by a single factor - there are a number of influences that can change the planet's radiative balance. However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.
__________________
Posts: 26,186
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 03:55 PM   #142
Donger Donger is offline
"Think BOOM!"
 
Donger's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 33.675 N 106.475 W
Casino cash: $166
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
Take a look:

Nasa Datasets of all types: http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/KeywordSea...arameters|Home
Ice core data sets: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/
Paleoclimatic specific data sets: http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/KeywordSea...b3#maincontent

If you're just talking about ice cores, those have been taken from just about every viable location possible. Which is of course limited to where ice has been standing for thousands of years. But ice cores are quite accurate, and have provided a ton of data other than just CO2 levels. Particularly, it's been the dust, air bubbles, and other stuff trapped in the ice that's given us much more usable data. Then that data is compared to other forms of dating, to give an overall average.

Every method certainly has its limitations. Which is why they incorporate many different methods that are completely independent of each other.
So, what's the degree (heh) of accuracy?
__________________
I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?
Posts: 78,149
Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.Donger is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 03:55 PM   #143
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $11371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
What CO2 data have you been looking at? I'd be interested in that. The gist of what I've been reading has said that CO2 levels in the past haven't shown to be a dominant force driving climate change, but that over the past century or so that's all changed and now CO2 is a major contributor to climate change.

Here's a decent explanation of it:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...termediate.htm
That's the claim and it has consistently been proven wrong by reality. With the massive increase in measured CO2 levels we were supposed to see a corresponding rise in temperature. The past decade of increased CO2 but level temperature has pretty much blown that theory up. Even before the current reality busted the "predictive" models... the effect of CO2 had already been adjusted down from previous assumptions.
Posts: 15,145
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 04:32 PM   #144
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $10893
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
That's the claim and it has consistently been proven wrong by reality. With the massive increase in measured CO2 levels we were supposed to see a corresponding rise in temperature. The past decade of increased CO2 but level temperature has pretty much blown that theory up. Even before the current reality busted the "predictive" models... the effect of CO2 had already been adjusted down from previous assumptions.
What do you mean that they've been proven wrong by reality? Any links to something that shows this, or at least better explains this?

I'm not sure about saying "We were supposed to see a corresponding rise in temperature". It's not that simple. CO2 is only one of many forcing effects in play. The absence of a perfect correlation between just those two factors doesn't blow the theory up. Not by any means.

There has been a rise in temperature. Not perfectly correlating with the rise in CO2. But there's clearly been a rise in global temperature along with CO2.

__________________
Posts: 26,186
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 04:59 PM   #145
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $11371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
What do you mean that they've been proven wrong by reality? Any links to something that shows this, or at least better explains this?

I'm not sure about saying "We were supposed to see a corresponding rise in temperature". It's not that simple. CO2 is only one of many forcing effects in play. The absence of a perfect correlation between just those two factors doesn't blow the theory up. Not by any means.

There has been a rise in temperature. Not perfectly correlating with the rise in CO2. But there's clearly been a rise in global temperature along with CO2.
I covered all this in another thread awhile ago and am far too lazy to look it up!

The models that are often used in this context have been shown to be wildly inaccurate due to over weighting the amount of forcing caused by CO2. Even with constant adjustments down they still don't reflect measured temperatures.

Your graph is a perfect example, if you overlay the CO2 measurements you can see that CO2 has continued to rise at an insane rate but temperatures have leveled off.

By no means am I saying that CO2 is not a factor. I am however saying that it appears to be one of the most insignificant factors. Methane on the other hand looks to be a much more significant one.

We both agree, there needs to be much more research on this before we even start to approach a cohesive view on the subject.
Posts: 15,145
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 07:11 PM   #146
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $10893
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
I covered all this in another thread awhile ago and am far too lazy to look it up!

The models that are often used in this context have been shown to be wildly inaccurate due to over weighting the amount of forcing caused by CO2. Even with constant adjustments down they still don't reflect measured temperatures.

Your graph is a perfect example, if you overlay the CO2 measurements you can see that CO2 has continued to rise at an insane rate but temperatures have leveled off.

By no means am I saying that CO2 is not a factor. I am however saying that it appears to be one of the most insignificant factors. Methane on the other hand looks to be a much more significant one.

We both agree, there needs to be much more research on this before we even start to approach a cohesive view on the subject.
Well I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Every single legit source of information I've seen has shown that CO2 is clearly the most significant green house gas(other than water vapor, but that's different). Twice as much as methane. And I can't find a single source that says CH4 is a more significant force than CO2. Methane is more potent, but there's less of it and unlike CO2 methane actually breaks down naturally in the atmosphere. Every single study I've seen shows CO2 as having twice the radiative force as CH4.

The most recent and by far the most comprehensive report on climate change is the upcoming IPCC AR5 report, due next year. But it's been leaked already. Here's the data from it:

Quote:
RF(Radiative Forcing) from the well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHG) has increased by 0.20 0.02 W m222 (8%) since AR4 (2005) due to increased concentrations. The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 0.28 W m2. Of the 0.20 W m2 increase since AR4, 0.01 W m2 is due to updates in the RF calculations and the rest due to concentration changes, mainly from increases in CO2. The industrial era RF for CO2 alone is 1.82 0.18 W m2 and is virtually certain the strongest component causing a positive RF since 1750. Over the last 15 years, CO2 has clearly been the dominant contributor to the increase in RF from the WMGHG, with RF of CO2 having an average growth rate slightly less than 0.3 (0.27 0.03) W m2 per decade. [8.3.2; Figure 8.6]

WMGHG other than CO2 show a weak increase in RF since AR4 (2005). A small growth in the CH4 concentration has increased its RF by 2% compared to the AR4 (2005) value to 0.48 0.05 W m2. N2O has increased by 6% since AR4 (2005) and has a RF of 0.17 0.02 W m2. N2O concentrations continue to rise while those of CFC-12, the third largest WMGHG contributor to RF for several decades, are falling due to phase-out of this chemical under the Montreal Protocol. Since 2011 N2O has become the third largest WMGHG contributor to RF. The RF from all halocarbons (0.36 W m2) is very similar to the value in AR4 (2005), with a reduced RF from CFCs but increases from many of their replacements. Four of the halocarbons (CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and HCFC-22) account for around 85% of the total halocarbon RF. The first three of these compounds have declining RF over the last five years but their combined decrease is compensated for by the increased RF from HCFC-22. Since AR4 (2005) the RF from all HFCs has increased by 78% and has a RF of 0.02 W m2. There is high confidence that the growth rate in RF from all WMGHG is weaker over the last decade than in the 1970s and 1980s owing to a reduced rate of increase in the non-CO2 RF

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch8_..._All_Final.pdf


That's the most recent research available. AR5 did find that the greenhouse gasses had less of an overall effect on temperature than previously thought, and solar forcing had a much much bigger effect than previously though. Which went against many previous studies. I'm wondering if that was what you were talking about. But that didn't really change what we know about CO2 and CH4 forcing.

Again, I agree with your point that we don't know enough to call for action. I just highly question saying CO2 was one of the most insignificant factors in radiative forcing.
__________________
Posts: 26,186
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013, 01:26 AM   #147
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $10893
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWillie View Post
Is it going to be cheaper? No. I vote no then . I vote the cheapest energy possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWillie View Post
I dont understand why ppl even care. I do not care what happens to the climate, this much I assure you. It wont matter in my lifetime. I have like 50 years left to live. Sounds like a good deal to me if the temperatures rise. If I ever became immortal or my life expectancy increased to 500 yrs I might begin to care. My plan is to be as wreckless as possible because I do not care about your grandchildrens grandchildren.
Luckily, even slimeball politicians aren't as ****ing selfish and simple minded as you. JFC.. Hopefully you don't have kids or none of your family has kids that you would care about.
__________________
Posts: 26,186
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013, 09:47 AM   #148
theelusiveeightrop theelusiveeightrop is offline
Spiraling down the Drain
 
theelusiveeightrop's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Dante's Ninth Circle
Casino cash: $12318
I believe climate change is occurring. I do not believe humans are the cause.
__________________
"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, Senator, but never think it applies to my family."

2014 Adopt a Chief - Travis Kelce #87
Posts: 20,334
theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.