Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[cannon_fodder]

Ok, wait. Are we trying to compare dieting plans with the study of climate change? Sounds like a new thread to me. Let me try one more time...

The beauty of science is that it can change our understanding of the world. It improves with new evidence. At a certain point, enough evidence has been gathered to consider a conclusion a "fact" and we are able to then utilize that information in planning. While we don't exactly know how the flu virus will evolve, we understand that it will and we attempt to plan for that with new flu vaccines. We really don't have a full grasp of relativity, but we know enough to make GPS work.

All I'm trying to say is that we know enough about climate change to consider it a fact. Very specifically, all data shows that a rise C02 will be reflected in a corresponding rise in temperature (at least it has over the last 800,000 years or so from which they can extrapolate data, in lab tests, computer models, and in observable data). Similarly, the C02 rate has been cyclical between 200mil ppm (ice age) and 300ppm (interglacier period) for ~800,000 years.  We are now over 400ppm, which came to pass in a massive spike of Co2 omissions that corresponds with the Industrial Revolution and accelerates in lock step with human C02 emissions.  These facts are not in dispute - the only thing disputed is the conclusion drawn from them. Sure, this sudden spike could be a natural anomaly that simply hasn't ever happened before and is totally unrelated to our observable facts on C02 as a greenhouse gas and the correlation with our c02 emissions.  But that conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

Gaspar, if every time you ate sugar you put on weight... then stopped eating sugar and lost weight, then ate sugar again and put on weight - we can safely say that sugar is causing you to gain weight. If suddenly you begin injecting yourself with triglycerides (Sugar in - monosaccharides [e.g. fructose] into the blood stream - excess monosaccharides to the liver which converts them to triglycerides, which is stored as FAT!), more than you have ever been exposed to before and you see a corresponding sudden rise in weight --- you would immediately say that the injection of triglycerides is causing the weight spike.  Sure, it could be sudden onset of a select few diseases or a spontaneous appearance of a hormonal disorder that just happens to correspond to the injections, but given the known inject of triglycerides I don't think John's Hopkins is going to want to do too many studies.

In real life, you found a diet that helped you eliminate the extra triglycerides and therefore the fat. On planet earth, we need to find a diet to either eliminate the extra C02, or otherwise deal with it.  At very least we need to move past the base line and acknowledge that it is happening, we very likely caused it, and try to figure out what it means as well as if we can practicably do anything about it.

[rebound]

Ok, wait. Are we trying to compare dieting plans with the study of climate change? Sounds like a new thread to me. Let me try one more time...

The beauty of science is that it can change our understanding of the world. It improves with new evidence. At a certain point, enough evidence has been gathered to consider a conclusion a "fact" and we are able to then utilize that information in planning. While we don't exactly know how the flu virus will evolve, we understand that it will and we attempt to plan for that with new flu vaccines. We really don't have a full grasp of relativity, but we know enough to make GPS work.

All I'm trying to say is that we know enough about climate change to consider it a fact. Very specifically, all data shows that a rise C02 will be reflected in a corresponding rise in temperature (at least it has over the last 800,000 years or so from which they can extrapolate data, in lab tests, computer models, and in observable data). Similarly, the C02 rate has been cyclical between 200mil ppm (ice age) and 300ppm (interglacier period) for ~800,000 years.  We are now over 400ppm, which came to pass in a massive spike of Co2 omissions that corresponds with the Industrial Revolution and accelerates in lock step with human C02 emissions.  These facts are not in dispute - the only thing disputed is the conclusion drawn from them. Sure, this sudden spike could be a natural anomaly that simply hasn't ever happened before and is totally unrelated to our observable facts on C02 as a greenhouse gas and the correlation with our c02 emissions.  But that conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

Gaspar, if every time you ate sugar you put on weight... then stopped eating sugar and lost weight, then ate sugar again and put on weight - we can safely say that sugar is causing you to gain weight. If suddenly you begin injecting yourself with triglycerides (Sugar in - monosaccharides [e.g. fructose] into the blood stream - excess monosaccharides to the liver which converts them to triglycerides, which is stored as FAT!), more than you have ever been exposed to before and you see a corresponding sudden rise in weight --- you would immediately say that the injection of triglycerides is causing the weight spike.  Sure, it could be sudden onset of a select few diseases or a spontaneous appearance of a hormonal disorder that just happens to correspond to the injections, but given the known inject of triglycerides I don't think John's Hopkins is going to want to do too many studies.

In real life, you found a diet that helped you eliminate the extra triglycerides and therefore the fat. On planet earth, we need to find a diet to either eliminate the extra C02, or otherwise deal with it.  At very least we need to move past the base line and acknowledge that it is happening, we very likely caused it, and try to figure out what it means as well as if we can practicably do anything about it.

Can I continue the analogy?  I think there are corresponding emotional reactions to both obesity (at a personal level) and climate change (at a societal level).  In both cases, the causes and effects are generally known.  But for some people (and societies), the changes required to address the problem (i.e. eat right and exercise, and/or quit burning so many fossil fuels) are so intrusive to their current lifestyle that they would rather deny the problem exists or attempt re-define what is acceptable.  For the obese, or for a society deeply dependent on fossil fuels, getting "fit" may seem impossible.  But making the effort to change is immensely better than continuing down the current path.

[RecycleMichael]

But making the effort to change is immensely better than continuing down the current path.

Accept what you cannot change. Especially in large denominations.

[guido911]

[BKDotCom]

The best program I've seen explain climate change is episode 12 of the excellent Cosmos series

Streaming on Netflix (it's only 41 minutes)
http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80004608&trkid=13641909

[RecycleMichael]

The best program I've seen explain climate change is episode 12 of the excellent Cosmos series

Streaming on Netflix (it's only 41 minutes)
http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80004608&trkid=13641909

Come on BKDotCom. There is no way that people who deny climate change are going to click on that. Science is a liberal plot.

[heironymouspasparagus]

All I'm trying to say is that we know enough about climate change to consider it a fact. Very specifically, all data shows that a rise C02 will be reflected in a corresponding rise in temperature (at least it has over the last 800,000 years or so from which they can extrapolate data, in lab tests, computer models, and in observable data). Similarly, the C02 rate has been cyclical between 200mil ppm (ice age) and 300ppm (interglacier period) for ~800,000 years.  We are now over 400ppm, which came to pass in a massive spike of Co2 omissions that corresponds with the Industrial Revolution and accelerates in lock step with human C02 emissions.  These facts are not in dispute - the only thing disputed is the conclusion drawn from them. Sure, this sudden spike could be a natural anomaly that simply hasn't ever happened before and is totally unrelated to our observable facts on C02 as a greenhouse gas and the correlation with our c02 emissions.  But that conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

Just a quick note - your CO2 level numbers are right.  What is out of sync is the order of when all this happens.  It is very clear from all the ice core data that temperature always moves first - followed by CO2.  By hundreds if not thousands of years....both up and down.

The 400 ppm average we are seeing today is the thing that I have been talking about for a long, long time - that is the big difference from the past and is why we should be very cautious.  And try to stop this kind of increase.  We should actually be scared sh$tless!!  If things get hot like they were in the time of the dinosaurs, we are gonna have nothing to eat!  At least not on a level we are eating today! 

It is much like the wild, headlong rush to GMO foods - we are performing massive, world scale experiments with big "toys" we really don't understand.  One of these times, it's gonna bite us in the butt and it ain't gonna be fun!!   Somehow, "I told you so..." just won't quite cut it...!

[swake]

Those hippies at NOAA agree with the Japanese that 2014 was hottest on record. 3rd time in the last decade the record has been broken.

http://www.startribune.com/business/288822531.html

[Gaspar]

According to the NYT, the oceans are all gonna die again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html

Also, the planet is no longer fit for human occupation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/01/14/science.1259855

It was nice knowing y'all. See ya on the other side.

[RecycleMichael]

Those hippies at NOAA agree with the Japanese that 2014 was hottest on record. 3rd time in the last decade the record has been broken.

http://www.startribune.com/business/288822531.html

Science is a liberal plot.

[guido911]

Those hippies at NOAA agree with the Japanese that 2014 was hottest on record. 3rd time in the last decade the record has been broken.

http://www.startribune.com/business/288822531.html

According to this link from drudge, hippies are being hippies.


http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

[guido911]

Only posting this because the headline is funny. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[Conan71]

Only posting this because the headline is funny. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Shhhhhh!  This is what settled science looks like Guido.

[TheArtist]

Shhhhhh!  This is what settled science looks like Guido.

Most of the time the "Science" is fine, it's when you get scientists inaccurately talking about it and reporters inaccurately reporting about it that the rest of us get a bunch of muddled poop.

[cannon_fodder]

Great point William. You really do have to look for a source that clearly discusses the scientific ramifications. To state categorically that 2014 was "the hottest year on record" is too far to stretch the science. TO state that global temperature readings suggest that 2014 was the hottest year on record would be an accurate statement. Plus, the "hottest year on record" is irrelevant sensationalism. It is the long term trend that matters.

Scientific America does a really good job of not overstating what evidence supports:

This year will likely be the hottest on record for the planet, with global temperatures 1.03 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 1961-to-1990 average, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization.

This would make 2014 the 38th consecutive year with an anomalously high annual global temperature.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/

Or... we could look at "Climate Depot," a website set up by a lobbying group (which apparently utilizes an 8 year old web master) to confront the "global warming establishment" about "conning the public" with climate change hoaxes.  After all, the article Guido linked to does say "Climate Depot's Marc Morano issued this statement." Yep, the website Climate Depot quoted Climate Depot's employee as a source.

The entire point of the organization is to fight the idea of global warming and any reaction to it and to encourage oil drilling in the arctic and north slope of Alaska. It is funded mostly by Chevron, Exxon, Koch Industries, Melon Industrial  trusts, etc.  The highest paid employee is Morano (who wrote the article quoting Morano) who believes  Climate Scientists deserve to be publicly flogged.  This is the same guy who did the "Swift Boat" stories on Kerry that were rated as lies by fact check. He also trolled an AIDS benefit on behalf of the Family Research Council (which has been designated a hate group), claiming that the conference was a homosexual free-for-all and he tried really hard to catch it all on video. The guy is a classic troll on all fronts.

Here;s a hint: if a, entire website is set up with conspiratorial goals, funded directly by groups who will benefit front said goal, and the source of that funding is not transparent; it's probably not a very good source.