Global warming?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

Technical affluent , under 5000 words, 20 sources max.

Raw data would be appreciated.

1 pic = 1k words + a few words of picture legends
1 ref = http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct
measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.
The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees

[Undertoad]

Oh dear, HM.

Attacking the science is the correct approach.

Attacking the believers, on either side, is not.

[Undertoad]

I'm discussing the attitude

Discuss the science.

BTW science doesn't give a shit about consensus. That's not how science works. Science is evidence one way or the other followed by more evidence one way or the other. The truth isn't affected by our human beliefs and there are plenty of times when the 100% "consensus" has turned out to be 100% wrong. That's in recent history too: Stomach ulcers can't possibly be caused by a bacteria. Magnetism can't possibly be important to radiology. The list goes on.

If a post on GW is contains either the words "denier" or "warmist" it is really talking about people and not science. At that point it is just game-playing and can be ignored.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The politics of research is hard to separate from the science, in the results.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The politics of research is hard to separate from the science, in the results.

Hard, maybe sometimes... but eventually it does get separated if/when it makes a real difference.

That doesn't always happen with other approaches... e.g., common sense, religion, etc.

In other words, if your bed is floating it's time to seek higher ground.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Discuss the science.

BTW science doesn't give a shit about consensus. That's not how science works. Science is evidence one way or the other followed by more evidence one way ot the other.

What science doesn't do is certainty. But as evidence mounts up, it generates consensus. A few decades ago, while most studies supported warming, there was enough disagreement that "global cooling" made the headlines. The evidence has built consensus for warming since then.

The truth isn't affected by our human beliefs and there are plenty of times when the 100% "consensus" has turned out to be 100% wrong. That's in recent history too: Stomach ulcers can't possibly be caused by a virus. Magnetism can't possibly be important to radiology. The list goes on.

Sure, but "they also laughed at Bozo the clown". Consensus isn't a guarantee, but it is all we have when we want to use science for public policy.

If a post on GW is contains either the words "denier" or "warmist" it is really talking about people and not science. At that point it is just game-playing and can be ignored.

But global warming isn't just an academic topic. Public policy is involved. You, or I, or anyone, can ignore any aspect of a discussion that doesn't engage us, but politics is a powerful force in this field.

[Pico and ME]

Im horribly pessimistic about the whole thing...well about human nature. I think the only thing that will have any real impact is a massive viral pandemic.

[glatt]

Well, the silver lining of all the CO2 in the atmosphere and the warmer temperatures is that poison ivy is both more potent and more prolific. So we've got that going for us.

[Happy Monkey]

It's the perfect ground cover for people who want to keep the damn kids off their lawn.

[toranokaze]

This what that yeilded:
http://www.slideshare.net/tlenon/glo...ntation-850931

[Undertoad]

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.
The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

That one struck me as odd. The same climate scientists that are, uh, consensing, say that there hasn't been warming during the last decade.

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

The extent and thickness of Antarctic sea ice increased in the same time frame, although over the last decade it decreased. This stuff is hard.

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa

25000 years ago the glaciers reached 100 miles north of where I sit (near Philadelphia); they have been retreating a long time, creating the geography of NY state and eastern Canada.

(co2 image)

Here is why that's bad news. To reduce co2 production to 1950 levels would mean cutting to about a third of 2010's global energy usage. But it's worse than that. The energy usage of 1950 supported 2.5 Billion people; the 2010 level supports 7 Billion people. So to return to 1950 quickly will mean tremendous amounts of poverty and death, as well as global warfare over disappearing resources.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The extent and thickness of Antarctic sea ice increased in the same time frame, although over the last decade it decreased. This stuff is hard.

Not necessarily a good thing.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Here is why that's bad news. To reduce co2 production to 1950 levels would mean cutting to about a third of 2010's global energy usage. But it's worse than that. The energy usage of 1950 supported 2.5 Billion people; the 2010 level supports 7 Billion people. So to return to 1950 quickly will mean tremendous amounts of poverty and death, as well as global warfare over disappearing resources.

Yes it is bad news. Be a problem worth working on don't you think?

[Undertoad]

I believe that a tremendous amount of human intelligence is being directed on the problem every day, which in turn will lead to enormous efficiencies for lower energy consumption and cleaner energy consumption.

And I believe that the only thing that can slow or prevent this work from happening is a ham-handed approach to the problem.

[HungLikeJesus]

I think that guy at the Discovery Channel building yesterday was trying to work on the problem.

Look where it got him.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Worked for him, he won't be bothered by it any more.