UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[mrswdk]

Report's just out.

Watcha thinking?

[2dimes]

Arby's!

[Lootifer]

That I am at work far too early on a Saturday morning

[oVo]

Ha ha... it's still yesterday where I am.

I do think humans effect the environment,
we are the cancer of the Earth.

[Phatscotty]

are humans 95% to blame for the name Greenland?

[2dimes]

You're making me miss Lionz.

[chang50]

Why so low?

[rdsrds2120]

are humans 95% to blame for the name Greenland?

...you what?

BMO

[Lindax]

Ok, you convinced me that the climate on our planet never changed over millions of years, until humans came along.

Lx

[rdsrds2120]

Ok, you convinced me that the climate on our planet never changed over millions of years, until humans came along.

Lx

No noteworthy climatologist, or person seriously involved/interested in climatology, would make that claim. This is an example of the abnormality that relevant scientists are referring to:


(Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators)

Also...until humans came along? Like, Australopithecus?

BMO

[Lindax]

Ok, you convinced me that the climate on our planet never changed over millions of years, until humans came along.

Lx

No noteworthy climatologist, or person seriously involved/interested in climatology, would make that claim. This is an example of the abnormality that relevant scientists are referring to:


(Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators)

Also...until humans came along? Like, Australopithecus?

BMO

Mmmm.... 650,000 years is nothing in the earth''s history.

I don't have any fancy graphics to show, but I understand that any volcanic eruption puts more (bad?) stuff in the atmosphere than we as humans could do in a lifetime.

That really convinces me to get a more fuel-efficient car (not).

Lx

[macbone]

I found a chart, too, courtesy of epa.gov! =)



So who's right, the EPA or NASA? Hmmmmmm.

Edit: My bad! This is beneath the EPA chart:

These graphs are based on the Vostok ice core from Antarctica. They do not include the most recent increases in carbon dioxide and temperature caused by humans. Notice the strong connection between carbon dioxide and temperature. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2010) and Petit et al. (2001).

But the NASA data is from ice cores as well.

Hmmmmmmm.

Well, I'm not a scientist, although I did work for a year in an ecology lab in my last year in college (not the highest of qualifications (= ), but I do know that science is awesome; it's very, very hard; it makes sense as a unified whole, though there's plenty of odd stuff; and that it's very hard to compress into a five-second sound bite (although charts and graphs are useful for understanding difficult material).

For all my science classes, though, and my time spent working part-time in labs and hospitals over the course of four years of undergrad, I'll never get why folks insist on marrying politics and science.

[Phatscotty]

(Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators)

BMO

To me that information says it's too late and there is nothing we can do about it. Except score political points

I don't dispute an accurate measure of carbon level readings, but the response has been so frightening and the warnings so "end of the worldish" I think many other people also don't see how we can do anything about it. Like, maybe if the levels were just coming up to the line, then maybe....but that chart is just depressing. It shows I and everyone else today was screwed before we were born.

I AM A VICTIM!

[Metsfanmax]

I found a chart, too, courtesy of epa.gov! =)

So who's right, the EPA or NASA? Hmmmmmm.

Edit: My bad! This is beneath the EPA chart:

These graphs are based on the Vostok ice core from Antarctica. They do not include the most recent increases in carbon dioxide and temperature caused by humans. Notice the strong connection between carbon dioxide and temperature. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2010) and Petit et al. (2001).

But the NASA data is from ice cores as well.

Ice core data can't be used to determine current atmospheric CO2 levels. If you think about it, it's obvious: in order for an ice layer to form, new snow needs to fall on top of the old snow and bury it until it's compressed enough to freeze. Air bubbles that get trapped in the ice layer can then be measured for carbon dioxide concentration. But it takes at least a hundred years, and possibly thousands, for the snow to get buried deep enough to freeze and trap the air. Any time you see a graph like the one rds presented, the present-level CO2 concentrations are measured by thermometers and then tacked on to the ice core data.

I don't have any fancy graphics to show, but I understand that any volcanic eruption puts more (bad?) stuff in the atmosphere than we as humans could do in a lifetime.

That is actually not correct.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

[Night Strike]

I guess it's easy to blame humans with 95% certainty when data from the last 15 years is ignored and 114 out of 117 catastrophic predictions have not actually happened. But don't worry, we'll keep working to move trillions of dollars out of evil rich nations and into poor ones.

[Phatscotty]

are humans 95% to blame for the name Greenland?

...you what?

BMO

YUH. How did Greenland get the name Greenland, and why was that land so super green only a thousand years ago?

[maasman]

are humans 95% to blame for the name Greenland?

...you what?

BMO

YUH. How did Greenland get the name Greenland, and why was that land so super green only a thousand years ago?

As far as I know it was named that to get people to go there and avoid Iceland when it fact the names should have been reversed. I'm pretty sure it was not green 1,000 years ago.

[Metsfanmax]

I guess it's easy to blame humans with 95% certainty when data from the last 15 years is ignored and 114 out of 117 catastrophic predictions have not actually happened. But don't worry, we'll keep working to move trillions of dollars out of evil rich nations and into poor ones.

You think the global warming hypothesis is contradicted by the fact that nine of the ten hottest years on record (the official record starts in 1880) occurred in the last decade? I'd say the only way to deny global warming is if you've had your head in the sand for the last 15 years.

[Night Strike]

I guess it's easy to blame humans with 95% certainty when data from the last 15 years is ignored and 114 out of 117 catastrophic predictions have not actually happened. But don't worry, we'll keep working to move trillions of dollars out of evil rich nations and into poor ones.

You think the global warming hypothesis is contradicted by the fact that nine of the ten hottest years on record (the official record starts in 1880) occurred in the last decade? What part of the data from the last 15 years are we ignoring, exactly?

The fact that the temperature is virtually constant over the past 15 years and not precipitously climbing as we were told would happen. That's over 10% of the time that we have official stats, which is not an insignificant time period. And there's no doubt that our technology has become more accurate worldwide over that whole time period (taking measurements next to heat sinks not withstanding).

[Metsfanmax]

I guess it's easy to blame humans with 95% certainty when data from the last 15 years is ignored and 114 out of 117 catastrophic predictions have not actually happened. But don't worry, we'll keep working to move trillions of dollars out of evil rich nations and into poor ones.

You think the global warming hypothesis is contradicted by the fact that nine of the ten hottest years on record (the official record starts in 1880) occurred in the last decade? What part of the data from the last 15 years are we ignoring, exactly?

The fact that the temperature is virtually constant over the past 15 years and not precipitously climbing as we were told would happen.

Ignore the models for a second (and ignore the fact that the ocean temperatures have been constantly rising, and that more than 90% of global warming goes into ocean temperatures). How do you explain the fact that the ten hottest years on record have all been since 1998? What sort of natural effect is causing this?

That's over 10% of the time that we have official stats, which is not an insignificant time period.

The fact that it's not an insignificant time period is precisely the point. This is not just a one year fluke like 1998 was (compared to the years immediately adjacent). The last three decades were all the hottest decades on record. And the last one is likely the hottest in thousands of years (we can reconstruct the climate record well before 1880, as you know). But the thing climate change deniers constantly miss is that it's not the actual temperature level that really matters. It's the rate of increase that will cause us problems. We don't have hundreds of years to adapt -- we have a few decades.

And there's no doubt that our technology has become more accurate worldwide over that whole time period (taking measurements next to heat sinks not withstanding).

At least get your denialist talking points correct please. The argument you meant to make is "measurements next to heat islands" -- obviously a heat sink would be an area that decreases the temperature, and would therefore make the global warming hypothesis even stronger (since we would see a rise despite the artificial decrease caused by the flawed reading). Anyway, climate scientists have studied this and found that the records from temperature stations in remote areas basically match the ones in urbanized areas. This is such an obvious thing -- why would you assume that thousands of Ph.D. scientists would have missed something like this?

[Night Strike]

If the rate of increase is so important, why is the fact that it's stayed nearly the exact same temperature for 15 years not significant? Of course you're going to set new records even if they're only going up by 1/100th of a degree. That doesn't mean the temperature is spiking upwards or that any possible spike was directly caused by humans. There's this little thing called the sun that plays a very direct role in our temperatures. And we also know that temperatures have been way higher and way lower at various times throughout history....and clearly those were caused by something other than evil humans.

[Dukasaur]

are humans 95% to blame for the name Greenland?

...you what?

BMO

YUH. How did Greenland get the name Greenland, and why was that land so super green only a thousand years ago?

The land was not for the most part green. It has been covered in ice for millions of years, but there are a few patches of arable land around some of the bays. When Erik the Red settled it, he spent a long time searching for such a piece of land, and had to sail past hundreds of miles of ice before he found a worthwhile bay to settle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red#Discoveries

In this context, about 982, Erik sailed to a somewhat mysterious and little-known land. He rounded the southern tip of the island (later known as Cape Farewell) and sailed up the western coast. He eventually reached a part of the coast that, for the most part, seemed ice-free and consequently had conditions—similar to those of Iceland—that promised growth and future prosperity. According to the Saga of Erik the Red, he spent his three years of exile exploring this land. The first winter he spent on the island of Eiriksey, the second winter he passed in Eiriksholmar (close to Hvarfsgnipa). In the final summer he explored as far north as Snaefell and into Hrafnsfjord.

When Erik returned to Iceland after his exile had expired, he is said to have brought with him stories of "Greenland". Erik deliberately gave the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, "people would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name".[7] He knew that the success of any settlement in Greenland would need the support of as many people as possible. His salesmanship proved successful, as many people (especially "those Vikings living on poor land in Iceland" and those that had suffered a "recent famine") became convinced that Greenland held great opportunity.

[Metsfanmax]

If the rate of increase is so important, why is the fact that it's stayed nearly the exact same temperature for 15 years not significant?

It hasn't stayed at the exact same temperature for the last 15 years. Go to this page and type in 1993-2013 to see the average temperatures for the last 20 years. Here's what you get:



Does that curve look flat to you?

Of course you're going to set new records even if they're only going up by 1/100th of a degree.

So you think that nine out of ten years setting a new record happened by random chance? That's even worse randomness than CC dice.

That doesn't mean the temperature is spiking upwards or that any possible spike was directly caused by humans. There's this little thing called the sun that plays a very direct role in our temperatures. And we also know that temperatures have been way higher and way lower at various times throughout history....and clearly those were caused by something other than evil humans.

There are many natural factors that influence the climate. That does not mean anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions do not also influence the climate. As I recall, you study chemistry or something similar. You should know that our basic conception of anthropogenic global warming is based on really simple physics and chemistry. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We are pumping a lot of it into our atmosphere. In what way could we not therefore be causing some warming? Do you disagree with or not understand the warming mechanism here? I am willing to explain if you are unfamiliar. If you do understand it -- how can you explain the fact that we are significantly warmer in 2013 than we are, on average, in 1880? What change in the sun's output or other natural phenomenon is responsible for this?

[Serbia]

There are WAY too many words written in this therrad. What do I think? I think I want some potato chips.

Bollocks.

[Night Strike]

Of course I understand the mechanisms of global warming.....but that doesn't make humans the primary cause of it. Remember, the big scare of the 60s and 70s was global cooling....were we not pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the air then? There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past? And why do we keep pumping this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere yet the temperatures are not skyrocketing, the oceans rising, and coastlines flooding like we were all promised would happen? Sounds like there is a lot more going on than "humans are evil".


And even if we assume all of your beliefs are true.....that still doesn't mean that redistributing trillions of dollars of money will fix it. Especially when all of the governmental solutions make the environment worse.