[quote who="Daiwa" reply="880" id="3407539"]There you go again. I made no 'claim' at all. [/quote] Of course you make no claim, but you gave that as an example that current knowledge is (very) flawed. Perhaps you could give another example. [quote who="psychoak" reply="881" id="3407542"]They have a 200 year difference ten thousand years back.[/quote] The error is independent of the depth/age, because the physical burial process is a given. So the erro
[quote who="psychoak" reply="877" id="3407497"]and still found a lag as high as 200[/quote] That's not lag. It's uncertainty. If you have a 200 year difference on 100,000 years, then the error is 0,2% which is very small. So give those people some credit ok and don't be so nitpicky about these things. Also you should take into account that the data are "raw" and not corrected (completely) for the way the information is buried. I suppose because it&#
This explains more about the so-called "lag" that was observed. It's an artifact ... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve Quote: "But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age differenc
[quote who="psychoak" reply="871" id="3407476"]and the CO2 handled the rest, but of course there's that whole time problem...[/quote] There isn't a lag ... that's a myth http://phys.org/news/2012-07-temperatures-co2-climate.html
This article is really interesting, unfortunately I couldn't get a normal link, only the google link ... : <a href="http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=26&cad=rja&ved=0CFkQFjAFOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpages.uoregon.edu%2Fdogsci%2F_media%2Fdirectory%2Ffaculty%2Fgreg%2Fco2climate.pdf%3Fid%3Ddirectory%253Afaculty%253Agreg%253Aabout%26cache%3Dcache&ei=td9iUtvjCI3K0AWk1YCYCw&usg=AFQjCNEdDCn832XO8ZUJuC8gYYeLW_PPcw&
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="865" id="3407378"] Even the rebuttal says it was 3000 ppm during the ice age.[/quote] It didn't, it said it was less than 3000 ppm. The point is, at that time the greenhouse effect was less than you claimed, enough to allow a short period of glaciation. That's what they said. Therefore you cannot say that this invalidates current knowledge of the climate. The weathering story is interesting. The thing is... to make
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="861" id="3407174"]This might be a stab at it. Of course, I believe we were a bit further away from the sun 450 million years ago.[/quote] Yeah... and this debunks the stab. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-highcarbon-ice-age-mystery-solved.html#.UmI_UdD8KUk <a href="http://skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/CO2-was-higher-in-
Ok I shouldn't be posting here anymore but whatever ... I'm tired of nitpicking but I do wonder what kind of reasoning skeptics have... - if it's not humans, which source has added the extra CO2 in the atmosphere? - how can you explain that before the industrial revolution, CO2 content was pretty stable in the atmosphere, and since the widespread use of coal it has increased, in line with the use of coal. - why is CO2 level higher in the northern hemis
A bit optimistic here: http://www.livescience.com/40525-tech-gains-powering-wind-energy.html But still... interesting to see how China isn't lagging behind. I don't know what's driving this... maybe it is a simple matter of reducing the reliance on (expensive) energy imports? Or maybe it's because China cannot dig up coals fast enough to meet demand? Or ma
Psyhcoak, a big volcanic eruption like Pinatubo had a much larger cooling effect than we're observing know. We're talking about fractions of a degree here... that doesn't take 1 major volcanic eruption, a few smaller ones can contribute to that as well. It's not about the solar maximum being deeper by 0.02% ... it's about it being longer. It takes the sun longer to heat up. Here, the graph in this article shows it better. <a href="http://www.s
[quote who="psychoak" reply="823" id="3406314"]It's fucking normal dude. The change from this cycle to the last is a small fraction of the change over the course of a cycle, and the cycles themselves didn't blunt the warming during the 80's and 90's. This is the exact same trend in solar activity that we had then. They did predict [/quote] An anomalous 0.1% change on a 300 degree Kelvin scale is more than enough to explain the difference in temperature, after all
Nobody could predict that the sun remained so calm for the last few years... hardly any sunspots, the sun is cooler than normal. Or the occasional volcano, like in Island a few years back that blasts a blanket of particles into the air. From what I've read, once these things were incorporated into the models, they WERE able to model the temperatures reasobably well. This is the reason why no-one should base long-term conclusions based on just an incidenta
For those who don't know how science works: it works with datasets. The data are never perfect, for example you can measure 20 degrees on one spot and a person a little further will measure 21 degrees. This gives a distribution of data... many measurements will be around 20 degrees and some a little higher, some a little lower. Suppose this set of measurements has 10% error. Now we have a different dataset, for example the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Suppose this also
[quote who="myfist0" reply="766" id="3405352"]I also get a kick out of the 'deniers' label implying that this is rock solid science and anyone must be crazy to be sceptical. Your own 'top scientist' keep stating "more than likely" but if I am sceptical about likely I am a denier? What a joke.[/quote] Very likely, meaning a 99% chance. There is almost no data that contradicts our influence on climate. Those data that do contradict, can most likely be discarded as noise
Well... critics have a point when they say that temperature rise has halted for about 15 years. But imo it's too soon to tell if this is really statistically significant compared to the longer (fairly reliable) data of the past 50 years, or the more historical data of 150 years in the past. Imho it'll take a while before things really become noticeable. So far there was an increase of less than 1 degree celcius (on average), that's hard to notice. In
Instead of discussing current data and nitpicking about a few percent more or less, or about how a trend over a period of 10 years is significant or not, you could also look at (ancient) history, 200 millions years ago when intense volcanism introduced a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. It took the volcanoes many thousands of years to reach a level of about 4000 ppm from a baseline of about 2,000 ppm. It could have taken as long as 100,000 years of intermittent pe
I've recently read an article that the Chinese elderly are allowed to sue their child(ren) if they don't visit enough. The Chinese children had a tradition of respect for their parents, but that's changed recently. They're apparently more interested in money.
Well anyway... I'm really outta this topic. You people are thinking too much in terms of economics, instead of in terms of a weighting of both economics AND risk. Or rather... not risk, but expected value which is: the risk times the potential for disaster. And nuclear plants end up waaaaay high on the risk/expected value scale.
[quote who="Kantok" reply="726" id="3404454"]Nuclear isn't considered an alternative, yet it is the single best hope humans have right now of dramatically reducing CO2 generation as quickly as possible.[/quote] WTF is that kind of argument. It's only the so-called "economically viable alternative" It's not the best one if you consider the consequences of placing nuclear power plants all over the globe! For example... take Zimbabwe with the dictator
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="725" id="3404445"]No one has said GW doesn't exist. We have said we're not convinced that humans are the major cause behind it. Big difference.[/quote] I am impressed with your conclusion. We're pumping hundreds of times more CO2 in the air than all volcanous on the world combined. How can that be insignificant... the rate of increase of CO2 at the moment surpasses that of extinction events... I'm amazed that you don't ap
Well ok... this discussion with you is completely pointless and I'm outta here. Just wait a few decades until more data are gathered. Maybe it'll become clearer then. I think it's already pretty clear... by then it should be fucking obvous. A few decades probably won't hurt much. Maybe it'll get a bit warmer here in the Netherlands.
Pff, Kantok, you're being ridiculous. You're pulling all kinds of crap arguments from your ass to see how "economically wrong" it is. Don't you get it ... this is NOT about economics alone. It's also about SURVIVAL. OF COURSE it will cost money. You prefer to go on like we are now and do nothing, nothing at all. You've already given up before we've started. But well... give it a few more decades, maybe you'll change your mind by then
[quote who="Kantok" reply="720" id="3404319"]Or, more succinctly, eventually you run out of other people's money. [/quote] You don't, as long as you have enough people that are "free" to work on the problem. The economy will only be damaged if there is: 1. a shortage of people 2. a shortage of resources. Point 2 might be more of a problem, especially in the beginning. Later on, part of the supply problems can be alleviated by recycling.
Sure we can afford it. If we use a time line of say 100 years, than this big problem can be subdivided into many smaller problems - 1% each year. That should be doable... About 100 years ago, people had their own coal furnaces at home. The coals were delivered by a horse/cart. Nowadays that would seem impossible and inefficient, but people didn't know better. They didn't have electricity and gas pipes. Still, people weren't really poor... su
I've mentioned the German way, of investing heavily in solar panels. Imo it's the only sensible way to solve the energy problem for the time being. It's costly, but solar panels won't blow up the world. I would also like to remove subsidies on the solar panels... just make them obligatory very gradually over a long period of time. Imo it would also be better to place solar panels in the Sahara desert and to transport the electricity from there to
Sins Forums