Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[guido911]

Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

It'll happen when your briefs quit circling Uranus.

[Ed W]

Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

In approximately 5 billion years, our sun will become a red giant as it burns helium. No one will care about your thoughts then, counselor, just as no one cares now. Some things never change.

[Red Arrow]

warming was not entirely a function of human activity due to a lingering El Nino condition for the first third of the year after nearly a full year of it in 2015. 

Get with the program...
El Nino is cause by human activity.

 

[Red Arrow]

Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

The day after I retire.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

Explained already.  You weren't paying attention.  And denial about even hearing about it is yeah...Fake Fox News Sound Bite response.

[Hoss]

[Red Arrow]

...and another one bites the dust...

[cannon_fodder]

You go to an awful lot of trouble to reply to: "The science isn't settled". 

It's a simple point, CF:  The mechanism by which it is happening is not "settled". 

I can be short.  The science on mechanism very well settled (increase C02 = increase heat).  Results and externalities still being studied. 

My post was long because I explained the reasoning. As previously stated, the problem is that the quest to better understand is interpreted as "See, they don't know!!!!"  You can throw out as many possibilities or conspiracy theories as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the science is settled. Provide extra ordinary proof, or its just denial.

[BKDotCom]

Several years ago Microsoft announced that they were improving virus/malware protection in MS Windows.
The Mac fanboy in my office used this announcement as proof that Macs were superior

A few weeks later Apple announced that they were improving virus/malware protection in OSX
The Mac fanboy in my office used this announcement as proof that Macs were superior

how is this relevant?  People entrenched in belief and cognitive dissonance will hear whatever they want to hear.

"Scientists seek to better understand gravity"
"Scientists seek to better understand magnets"

Opposites attract?!?   They can't even agree that magnets are a thing. Science on magnets isn't settled.   Gravity is just a theory.

[Conan71]

I can be short.  The science on mechanism very well settled (increase C02 = increase heat).  Results and externalities still being studied.  

My post was long because I explained the reasoning. As previously stated, the problem is that the quest to better understand is interpreted as "See, they don't know!!!!"  You can throw out as many possibilities or conspiracy theories as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the science is settled. Provide extra ordinary proof, or its just denial.

Why exactly does it matter what someone else's understanding or interpretation of "settled" science means?  If the only variable in the current hypothesis is that CO2 leads warming that seems to be the popular consensus at this time.  What do we say if the observations of the next 10 years are that it's cooler but CO2 remains static or rises slightly?  

Let's face it though, are we really that confident in our ability to estimate global average temperatures 800,000 years ago to within 2 degrees F? (vis-a-vis 2016 being the hottest year on record in 800,000 years).  Sorry, I'm still a bit skeptical of that claim as that trusts that our methodology in estimating temperatures is correct and that's all we have to go on as we did not have global weather stations 800,000 years ago.

Science evolves and sophisticated climatology really is in it's infancy.  They didn't have computerized models and 6000+ data points with ships, bouys, and satellites when global warming was first postulated in the 1800's, CF.  For everything we do know, there is so much more to learn.

And what do we really care about here?  That I share the same beliefs in climate change that you do?  I figure that matters as much as whether or not you share the same belief in what I believe makes a great wine or beer.

Or is the real point that people should be trying to achieve a smaller carbon footprint in their own little world to help lower emissions, which I've always said can't be a bad thing?  I'm willing to bet since we moved to rural New Mexico that MC and I probably have a smaller carbon footprint than most people in this discussion.  Our B & B is built to take advantage of the sun to provide a good deal of heating and we don't even have central A/C because summers are so temperate.  When we build our shop building on the property, I'm seriously mulling over either wind or solar to power it since we have an abundance of both.  On the average week, I doubt we go through more than 10 gal of gasoline these days and that includes making a weekly shopping trip to Taos or Raton.  We try and run whatever errands we can by bike or foot and I don't have to commute to a job every day.  I don't go so far as to purchase carbon credits which I think is total bullshit and profiteering off ignorance, but I'd say we are doing our part in our own way.  That IS the point, isn't it?

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Scientists find 91 new volcanoes in Antarctica. Scientists fear that melting ice will reduce pressure on the volcanoes and possibly cause them to erupt.

A concern among scientists is the potential impact these volcanoes could have on further melting and destabilizing the Antarctic Ice Sheet. It does not appear any of the volcanoes are to blame for the recent melting of ice sheets in Antarctica. However, the likelihood of the volcanoes becoming active may increase over time. This is because the ice over top these active volcanoes likely acts to contain pressures building up in these volcanoes. As the ice melts, this will reduce overlying pressure on the volcanoes and make it easier for them to erupt if they have an over-pressured magma chamber.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/14/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-lying-beneath-antarctic-ice-sheet/#56587a3f24d1

[Hoss]

Well, well...fancy that.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-climate-change-denial-think-tank-admits-using-false-data/

[cannon_fodder]

We are going full circle, so I'm sorry to repeat myself - but I shall persist!

Why exactly does it matter what someone else's understanding or interpretation of "settled" science means?  If the only variable in the current hypothesis is that CO2 leads warming that seems to be the popular consensus at this time.  What do we say if the observations of the next 10 years are that it's cooler but CO2 remains static or rises slightly?  

Because that's how science works.  I have not done the observations, I barely understand the math, and I don't have a lab.  So we can only declare a scientific fact by paying attention to the experts.  If the observable evidence changes and no longer fits the model, you must change your conclusion.  Again, that's the very basic notion of science.  In the present matter, the observable data and the conclusion have meshed for a long time and new observations buttress the findings.  Relying on an unknown "possibility" that the science is wrong is why the term "denier" is thrown around.  It isn't about the science or the conclusion, it is are refusal to accept the conclusion.

Let's face it though, are we really that confident in our ability to estimate global average temperatures 800,000 years ago to within 2 degrees F? (vis-a-vis 2016 being the hottest year on record in 800,000 years).  Sorry, I'm still a bit skeptical of that claim as that trusts that our methodology in estimating temperatures is correct and that's all we have to go on as we did not have global weather stations 800,000 years ago.

I went over this in painful detail and gave links to even more elaborate painful detail.  If you can come up with a study that disproves the method of temperature analysis utilizing calcium carbonate deposits formed by organisms, there is probably a fellowship and millions of dollars in grant money in it for you.  Recall, they can prove this method in a lab and they can repeat it - so you should be able to disprove it. You don't have to blindly agree, but if you feel the consensus is wrong the burden is on you to go out and prove it wrong.

Science evolves and sophisticated climatology really is in it's infancy.  They didn't have computerized models and 6000+ data points with ships, bouys, and satellites when global warming was first postulated in the 1800's, CF.  For everything we do know, there is so much more to learn.

Again, we discussed this.  No, it isn't in its infancy any more than nuclear fission is or electronics are.  But yep.  We want to learn more.  Once again, that is the basics of science.  That's the entire point.  We cannot learn more if we assume everything we know "might be wrong" so we just throw it all out.  Literally every scientific discovery in history might be wrong (or in some instances we know it is wrong, for instance, we know the Theory of Gravity is wrong because it isn't unified. But we still use it because it is the best model we have and can predict certain things), but we continue to clarify them and build upon them.

And what do we really care about here?  That I share the same beliefs in climate change that you do?  I figure that matters as much as whether or not you share the same belief in what I believe makes a great wine or beer.

Or is the real point that people should be trying to achieve a smaller carbon footprint in their own little world to help lower emissions, which I've always said can't be a bad thing?  

What I care about is two fold:  science and the future.   

Independent of any other consequences, the scientific method has advanced mankind in a few hundred years more than the 100,000 years before that.  When we cast aside its conclusions in favor of speculation, we are doing a huge disservice.  Science is presenting you with the most likely facts available.  Without that, we cannot make the best decisions possible (not just on this issue).

Which leads to number 2.  Yes, lowering your footprint at the micro level is great.  However, this is a macro problem.  If the threat is as bad as it may be, states like Florida and Louisiana (not to mention nations with similar topography) should be calling for drastic action.   As long as we continue to debate a settled topic (the "if") we cannot devout full effort into researching the "so what" element of the question.  What is likely to happen and what is the best way to address those issues?

It appears it is a compounding issue.  Small changes 40 years ago likely would have had a larger impact than drastic changes 40 years from now.  If you want, we can boil it all down to economics:  we need to figure out the most likely effects and the least damaging way of addressing them.  Our current plan is to wait and see if we need to panic.  That seems like a bad plan.


PS.  Am I still invited to the ranch.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

I can be short.  The science on mechanism very well settled (increase C02 = increase heat).  Results and externalities still being studied. 

My post was long because I explained the reasoning. As previously stated, the problem is that the quest to better understand is interpreted as "See, they don't know!!!!"  You can throw out as many possibilities or conspiracy theories as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the science is settled. Provide extra ordinary proof, or its just denial.

You stepped beyond the Fake Fox News Sound Bite reply and that is what confused so many of the minions....


And Conan, yeah.  The science is settled.  To anyone who knows anything about it and hasn't sold out to big oil to lie about it.