January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record

[Samwell Seed Well]

I found some things as well, but I don't understand how evidence of cooling has any bearing on our present warming so it makes sense what you are asking - did this study find correlations between co2 content, polar conditions and the like to be wrong? I don't understand.

heres a graph in the study with mean avgs, i took a few stat and probability class's in college and i dont think they are plotting this correctly to try and show variance and difference between different cooling and warming trends between eras of the last 2k years, the back end of the graph 1500 to present is obviously is going up . . .idk

i guess another question it raises is, what kinds of temp swings have more of an effect, is it like a pendulum as the higher temps get higher next it will get have a very low temp . . . . . and so forth accumulating larger and larger temp differences till an event happens . . . . .

but still i see a warming effect starting after the 1500's that they are not representing as they used an overall avg to plot decline in temps, vs this age and that age to show variances between the times, its not about how high or low the temps are its about how fast they change and if we are effecting this effect


from what i have skimmed over it proves nothing other than they think it was hotter in roman times!

 

[canndo]

Inhereted opinions rarely have any depth. Beenthere, like so many others has inhereted his opinion about global warming, he as much as admitted that when he said he knows very little about it, yet he posted a rather strong opinion about the small amount of influence mankind must surely have upon our environment.

Now I stated that conservatives in general simply cannot accomodate fact when that fact is in conflict with their opinion - many times this is exactly because those opinions are inhereted, an inhereted opinion is difficult to defend and because of that, we don't see much in depth argument on global warming. When pinned, the right exhibits that they have inheredted their opinions on global warming from an anti-manmade global warming machine. I suspect that Beenthere got his "facts" about co2 release from that machine. Limbaugh was a principle in the early onslaughts with his mt. pinatubo argument, claiming falsely that that erruption was far more devestating than man could possibly be. It makes "common sense", the sort of sense the right enjoys because it usually involves Colbert's "truthiness" doctrine - if it sounds right then it must be accurate, especially if it sounds right to a conservative. As we see, the two folks who promulgate this errant notion about vulcanism will not and cannot intigrate the truth, it defies their understanding. to do so would be like their cutting off a finger or toe. Conservatives have so internalized their belief system that an attack on it, real or imagined is like an attack on their physical person.

I can't use these two people alone to extrapolate what I am saying into the world, I can't even use the hundreds (actualy) of times I have done this with different conservatives, it is still anecdotal but there are at my last count 88 different sociological or psychological studies that bear out what I say - interesting how little exposure those studies have gotten in the "liberal media".

These folk can't come back, they can't address the points here and even if one or both of them do come back and answer the specifics it will only be at great difficulty and to disprove what has already been shown. It may be that one or both will come and simply "kick the sandcastle" - making some off the cuff remark or insult.

Now this is only part of the point. The rest is simple really, imagine a world where the sea level is rising at a foot a year. Will it be any easier to get these folk, who have their ego well vested in their own version of reality to acknowlege finally that global warming is happening? of course not, NO proof, NO evidence, NO logic will ever sway them because they are incapable of finally internalizing that which is contrarty to what they already believe. Is it ever, under any circumstances wise to introduce such people to the seats of power in this country? We can show mountains of evidence say... that reducing taxes for the rich doesn't work but they cannot adjust their course of action. Nothing that can be done or said will and that is why conservatives are simply not fit to hold the highest offices of this country.

 

[canndo]

I encountered a series of graphs recently while looking into other, more concrete evidence of global warming on a basis that perhaps conservatives could understand. I made the mistake of not saving them or their links but I figure I had better when I find them again.


If anyone is interested:

Historical Dollar amount of insured loss adjusted for inflation due to hurricane
Historical Dollar amount of insured loss adjusted for inflation due to tornado
Historical Dollar amount of loss due to flood (this doesn't work with insured losses)
Historical count of acreage lost to forest or wildfire

Now to my recollection, all are trending upward over the scales I found except flood which went down.

If this is a fact (and for these purposes I can't say that unless I present the graphs), then what other cause might there be but global warming and what better predictor of things to come?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

when ever i hear people start claiming opinions as facts about ideas vs data as facts with theory's as to what they mean in their reality of the situation, is normally a clear marker to how they think, obtusely and slowly

im my mind my opinion is like a story that is filled with scientific facts linked to thoerys and it builds and builds as i learn more, there is always a new chapter and always more to learn and to theorize if you ever think anything is debunked , you better have more then just ideas to back it up, repetitive and conclusive results outside any kind of scrutiny, right now global

warming is a trend and it is looking more and more then we are effecting it in multiple ways causing all sorts of kinks in the way the earth naturally heats and cools, as we move away from our heat source(the sun), but only time and real objective analysis of data can prove or disprove, and proving should be the primary focus as if it is true we have to make some very quick and hard

changes, and changes scare people. plain and simple, people like to believe there reality is safe and unshakable but its just a fantasy, like pot being bad for you when zero deaths a uear are recorded but alcohol and cigarettes are breaking death records a year as the population of baby boomers is aging and the earths total population rises

 

[cannabineer]

I encountered a series of graphs recently while looking into other, more concrete evidence of global warming on a basis that perhaps conservatives could understand. I made the mistake of not saving them or their links but I figure I had better when I find them again.


If anyone is interested:

Historical Dollar amount of insured loss adjusted for inflation due to hurricane
Historical Dollar amount of insured loss adjusted for inflation due to tornado
Historical Dollar amount of loss due to flood (this doesn't work with insured losses)
Historical count of acreage lost to forest or wildfire

Now to my recollection, all are trending upward over the scales I found except flood which went down.

If this is a fact (and for these purposes I can't say that unless I present the graphs), then what other cause might there be but global warming and what better predictor of things to come?

It's entirely possible that there is an actuarial systematic error. The common item in two of your four examples is not only natural disaster, but insurance. It's not a strong case, but for purposes of playing devil's advocate I present it. cn

 

[canndo]

It's entirely possible that there is an actuarial systematic error. The common item in two of your four examples is not only natural disaster, but insurance. It's not a strong case, but for purposes of playing devil's advocate I present it. cn

Good.

but that actuarial systematic error will have to extend across years or decades. I figure that insurance companies will inflate their losses for various reasons but even so, unless there is a trend to inflate those losses incrementaly more each year, the trend should still be clear. The problem comes if the trend is only evident on a national level. I don't know much about insurance in other countries, especially countries in the third world or asian countries. How are monsoons covered? Will those tsunamis skew the data? My father long ago told me that actuarials are the only truths in business and I tend to believe him (he was a dentist and not an insurance guy). But I am thinking that money paid or lost on natural disasters that are related to weather or climate might be the sort of thing that could get the attention of a conservative. The only flaw in this experiment of mine is the increase in population and building. That would have to be normalized somehow in order for it to be indisputable.

to put it bluntly, If it could be shown that progressively more losses are incurred then something environmental is causing it - there can be no other explaination.

but there is the mantra.

It isn't warming, if it is, we aren't causing it, if we are we can't fix it, if we can it is too expensive.

Now if I can demonstrate the first then I still have to deal with the second. The third and fourth are easy. I once calculated the cost to Mahattan Island of a loss of one linear foot to the encroachment of the sea. I don't remember the figure but it paled in comparison to buiding a sea wall around the island.

(if you have the notion and the time try watching the documentary "cool it". the guy it is about is being marginalized (and this is where the right has it correct). He acknowleges that global warming is happening but he claims that it can be dealt with and if we apply reason we can reduce our co2 footprint while contending with sea level rises and crop problems and disease without the major disruptions the right claims will be needed. In short - we needn't panic, it isn't doomsday, we can adjust and eventually correct, but we have to start now.

of course, I think Hubert's peak will take care of the problem.

 

[cannabineer]

I'm not convinced Hubbert's Peak will be an end, unless worldwide pressure/legislation/treaty sharply limits mining and burning of coal. Afaik Hubbert's is specific to petroleum. cn

 

[desert dude]

I encountered a series of graphs recently while looking into other, more concrete evidence of global warming on a basis that perhaps conservatives could understand. I made the mistake of not saving them or their links but I figure I had better when I find them again.


If anyone is interested:

Historical Dollar amount of insured loss adjusted for inflation due to hurricane
Historical Dollar amount of insured loss adjusted for inflation due to tornado
Historical Dollar amount of loss due to flood (this doesn't work with insured losses)
Historical count of acreage lost to forest or wildfire

Now to my recollection, all are trending upward over the scales I found except flood which went down.

If this is a fact (and for these purposes I can't say that unless I present the graphs), then what other cause might there be but global warming and what better predictor of things to come?

All the things you mention have increased over time. Ignoring inflation, we have simply built more, and put more acreage under the plow as our population has increased. Under those circumstances you would expect everything you mention to increase in real terms. I would say global warming is the least likely cause.

 

[canndo]

I'm not convinced Hubbert's Peak will be an end, unless worldwide pressure/legislation/treaty sharply limits mining and burning of coal. Afaik Hubbert's is specific to petroleum. cn

Hubert's peak is applicable to any finite resource.

I see your point about coal and peak coal must be a hundred or more years in the future. I think the same problems present themselves when switching to coal as they do with any other alternative fuel - namely entrenched infrastructure and the momentum needed to implement infrastructural changes in this country. I was in the field of alternative fuel for a number of years in several different capacities and that infrastructure is the biggest impediment of all.

In one project we converted Swartzenegger's Humvee to hydrogen - it took us a year to get the thing to operate at more than about 40 miles per hour. But the worst part was that infrastructure, he couldn't drive anywhere because if he ran out of fuel he would have to have his vehicle towed - energy densities being what they are, hydrogen fueling stations will need to be very close together.

I still believe that peak oil will change the way we all look at all fossil fuels and finally force us into change, which will begin to affect our carbon footprint.

 

[canndo]

Please notice that our friends never returned to this thread, I never got an admission that false "facts" were posted and we never saw an explaination of where these falsehoods came from. Again, conservatives have big problems with facts, the final direction of this thread is evidence of that observation.

 

[cannabineer]

Hubbert's peak is applicable to any finite resource.

I see your point about coal and peak coal must be a hundred or more years in the future. I think the same problems present themselves when switching to coal as they do with any other alternative fuel - namely entrenched infrastructure and the momentum needed to implement infrastructural changes in this country. I was in the field of alternative fuel for a number of years in several different capacities and that infrastructure is the biggest impediment of all.

In one project we converted Swartzenegger's Humvee to hydrogen - it took us a year to get the thing to operate at more than about 40 miles per hour. But the worst part was that infrastructure, he couldn't drive anywhere because if he ran out of fuel he would have to have his vehicle towed - energy densities being what they are, hydrogen fueling stations will need to be very close together.

I still believe that peak oil will change the way we all look at all fossil fuels and finally force us into change, which will begin to affect our carbon footprint.

Oh ... thank you for the correction.
I am surprised that the Humvee ran so badly on hydrogen ... it's a pretty good internal-combustion fuel. Afaik its Achilles' heels are energy density and difficulty to store. There was a research BMW that used a superinsulated tank for liquid hydrogen, but the tank was huge, expensive and still didn't keep the fuel for very long. cn

 

[canndo]

Oh ... thank you for the correction.
I am surprised that the Humvee ran so badly on hydrogen ... it's a pretty good internal-combustion fuel. Afaik its Achilles' heels are energy density and difficulty to store. There was a research BMW that used a superinsulated tank for liquid hydrogen, but the tank was huge, expensive and still didn't keep the fuel for very long. cn

Well, if you are interested, we made carbon fiber tanks capable of between 10,000 and 15,000 psi - at this pressure we got about the equivelent density as gasoline. The tanks had all sorts of safety features but testing found problems with them and we wached a hindenburg type conflaguration in a german lab. After we tested a 600 lb burst in a storage container and it blew the doors of the container 20 feet, I moved myself to another facility - considering that they flex tested the tanks on the premisis. (though with inert gases).

the problems are still enormous - the metal fittings get brittle, the regulator fails to meter correctly, and hydrogen being a small atom has a way of simply dissapearing from the tank. The worst problem was that each tank cost about 600 bucks to make. compare that to the 22 dollars it costs to make a gas tank.

 

[cannabineer]

Oh yes; there's the teenytiny problem of hydrogen's spectacular flammability, its supremely wide explosive mix-ratio envelope, and the factette that of the common gases, it's the one that'll spontaneously transition from deflagration to detonation without confinement.

But it makes a gloriously good liquid-rocket fuel. cn

 

[canndo]

Oh yes; there's the teenytiny problem of hydrogen's spectacular flammability, its supremely wide explosive mix-ratio envelope, and the factette that of the common gases, it's the one that'll spontaneously transition from deflagration to detonation without confinement.

But it makes a gloriously good liquid-rocket fuel. cn

The emergency "plume" was such that there was a weak spot in the vessel, it was supposed that the weak spot would fail first, directing a plume of high pressure hydrogen directly upward, the plume could not combust until it was mixed with o2 in the proportions you suggest and that did not occur at anything less than 20 ft from the source of the plume, the rational was that it wouldn't harm anyone on the ground. The germans cooked the tank off and the weak spot didn't always work. The company who shall remain nameless figured that the chances were high enough against that the didn't redesign. They sort of ignored accidents in tunnels and under bridges. It was a fun job though.

No Beenthere I see.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Bumped WRT scientific consensus

[h=2]Vision Prize Results[/h][h=4]Posted on 19 July 2012 by dana1981[/h]The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated below.

As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good. As a result, the answers to the poll questions were in line with the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. For example, approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence.Over 70% of participants also answered that an increase in atmospheric CO2 to 550 ppm would lead to a 1-3°C surface warming relative to year 2000 temperatures, with over 40% answering 2-3°C, and only ~8% answering less than 1°C.Remember that in 2000 we had already experienced ~0.8°C surface warming, so these answers are equivalent to 70+% of participants answering that either the transient climate response or equilibrium climate sensitivity (depending on how they interpreted the question) is ~2-4°C for doubled CO2, and only about 8% answering that it's lower than ~2°C, with a further ~20% answering that sensitivity is higher than ~4°C. In other words, the 'climate sensitivity is low' crowd is very poorly represented, which is not surprising given the expertise of the participants and the preponderance of evidence that climate sensitivity is not low.Approximately 80% of participants also answered that in a business-as-usual scenario in which governmental policies do not change, the 2000-2050 average global surface warming will be 1-3°C, with nearly 40% answering 1.5-2°C.Regarding CO2 emissions and concentrations, approximately two-thirds of participants answered that we can only keep CO2 levels below 550 ppm with current technology if there is a change in government policy. The other one-third of participants answered that we cannot keep CO2 below 550 ppm with current technology.

You can see the other Vision Prize questions and participant answers here. The prize aspect involved a competition amongst participants to predict how other participants would answer these questions, which formed the basis of the 'expected distribution of answers' in the graphics above. The Leaderboard contains some familiar names. Skeptical Science's own skywatcher came out on top, and I (Dana Nuccitelli) rounded out the top 25. David Karoly, Kevin Trenberth, and Bart Verheggen also made the list. The rewards are gift card prizes for the charity of our choice - skywatcher and I both chose the Union of Concerned Scientists, as it only seemed fitting to give climate-related award winnings to a groupfighting against climate misinformation.The results of the Vision Prize once again confirm the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming- in fact, more of a consensus than the participants even expected. This group of relatively well-informed scientists overwhelmingly agreed that humans are driving global warming, that climate sensitivity is within the range stated by the IPCC, and that we need to implement climate policies to avoid blowing past the 2°C 'danger limit'.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/vision-prize-results.html

 

[canndo]

Bumped WRT scientific consensus


http://www.skepticalscience.com/vision-prize-results.html

Wonderful as these charts are, we run into the same problem that I claim the right has - the notion that consensus somehow is truth. I recall reading that the vast majority of scientists of the era believed in the biblical rendtion of creation and their research was correlated to that singular principle. This was pre evolution but well post scientific method, had we taken a poll of their beliefs it would have been overwhelmingly "the earth is 6000 years old". Now I don't know the history of the acceptance of realitivity (by the way, check out conserveapaedia - they hold that relativity is a ruse and should not be accepted as fact..er.. theory, really), but I suspect that just before that theory was proposed or just before it was shown to be a likely explaination for the universe, the euclidian description of reality was generaly held to be correct.

 

[spandy]

Thanks repubs for ruining the fucking planet with your pro pollution/anti-science agenda

Are you fucking serious? We have what, 100 years of accurate weather forcasting and record keeping of weather, and in the millions of years this planet has been here you think the fucking republicans did it just recently?

Yeah, go kill yourself because I bet the myans were right too. Fucking dumbass.


We look back at people 50-100-500 years ago and laugh at their stupid believes and practices because of what we know now. My how they will laugh someday when we have a few hundred/thousand years of weather forcasting and data collection and they realize it's just a weather pattern.

Some volcanoes haven't erupted for hundreds if not thousands of years, when they go off are you going to blame some group for that too?

 

[canndo]

Are you fucking serious? We have what, 100 years of accurate weather forcasting and record keeping of weather, and in the millions of years this planet has been here you think the fucking republicans did it just recently?

Yeah, go kill yourself because I bet the myans were right too. Fucking dumbass.


We look back at people 50-100-500 years ago and laugh at their stupid believes and practices because of what we know now. My how they will laugh someday when we have a few hundred/thousand years of weather forcasting and data collection and they realize it's just a weather pattern.

Some volcanoes haven't erupted for hundreds if not thousands of years, when they go off are you going to blame some group for that too?

Those future folk may have a different reason to be angry, that we ruined the planet and refused to see the warning signs that they will have known to be actual harbingers of problems. Republicans have often been slow to react to those pesky environmental issues - and quick to take credit when they are finally addressed.

As many have said, there is a difference between weather and climate. This is more than some etherial prediction that the globe is growing warmer, we have concrete evidence that there is more CO2 in the air then there was.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Since the climate isn't the weather, please stop using weather data to back your claim of man made global warming.

Thank you.

Climate change is a natural process and has occurred many times in our earths history and will continue to happen, with or without humans.

 

[canndo]

Since the climate isn't the weather, please stop using weather data to back your claim of man made global warming.

Thank you.

Climate change is a natural process and has occurred many times in our earths history and will continue to happen, with or without humans.

Warming isn't happening, and if it is, we didn't cause it, and if we did, we can't do anything about it, and if we can it is too expensive.

So you hold that mankind can and does have absolutely no effect on our planet?