More careful climate research - same conclusions

[useless]

You can't chuck all those chemicals out into the atmosphere, without there being some sort of negative effect.

 

[Artifis]

That's what we'd like to believe. But the hugely pro-business guys on the right of the spectrum would like to say otherwise..

 

[useless]

That's what we'd like to believe. But the hugely pro-business guys on the right of the spectrum would like to say otherwise..

Maybe we should take responsibility for our polluting ways... Nah, only poor people should take responsibility.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's what we'd like to believe.

Not really the right way of phrasing it.

 

[Artifis]

Not really the right way of phrasing it.

Does "Of course it makes perfect bloody sense" sound better?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's the latter possibility which is causing all the political hate.

Yeah, that was a main portion of the skeptic crowd.
However, there certainly was a cohort who agreed that CO2 would cause warming (in theory) but that the amount of CO2 we expend wasn't too much, because there actually hadn't been warming.

So, now those who had suspected there was no warming (but didn't really know why there wasn't warming) can change their minds. New, convincing data is what quite a few people need to change their minds, even if they're normally partisan.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So, now those who had suspected there was no warming (but didn't really know why there wasn't warming) can change their minds. New, convincing data is what quite a few people need to change their minds, even if they're normally partisan.

I think there will be a "Jesus is coming back before 2050"/"I'd rather chance it than give up on Laissez-faire" bloc of significant size no matter what.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Wasn't the rapture supposed to be last week though?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Wasn't the rapture supposed to be last week though?

Camping is a heretic. This is, apparently, the mainstream view.

 

[innonimatu]

Yeah, that was a main portion of the skeptic crowd.
However, there certainly was a cohort who agreed that CO2 would cause warming (in theory) but that the amount of CO2 we expend wasn't too much, because there actually hadn't been warming.

So, now those who had suspected there was no warming (but didn't really know why there wasn't warming) can change their minds. New, convincing data is what quite a few people need to change their minds, even if they're normally partisan.

Fine, so there may be some warming going on for the latest few decades. I'm still not 100% persuaded that surface temperatures averaged from scattered ground stations are the best way to prove that.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'm still not 100% persuaded that surface temperatures averaged from scattered ground stations are the best way to prove that.

It's not. The best way to prove it is to watch the thermal expansion (and thus sea-level rise) of the oceans. That gives you automatic worldwide averaging, albeit with some anti-polar bias. (Because polar waters don't expand much when you heat them by 1 C, compared to heating mid-latitude or tropical waters by 1 C.)

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Wasn't the rapture supposed to be last week though?

Oh yeah...forgot about that.

Why did the media make the April 21 Rapture a huge story and ignore the October 21 backup date (as well as the inane comet-will-destroy-the-world conspiracy theory from last month)?

 

[Bootstoots]

I have a couple of questions for AGW skeptics:

1. Do you believe the increase in CO2 levels from ~280 ppm to ~390 ppm (increasing consistently by ~2 ppm a year, IIRC) observed in the last century or so is anthropogenic in origin?
2. CO2 is a known warming agent. If we have observed a rise in average global temperature of ~1 C, would the increased CO2 levels, along with increases in CH4 and other greenhouse gases, be a likely explanation for the temperature rise?

 

[Berzerker]

I have a couple of questions for AGW skeptics:

1. Do you believe the increase in CO2 levels from ~280 ppm to ~390 ppm (increasing consistently by ~2 ppm a year, IIRC) observed in the last century or so is anthropogenic in origin?
2. CO2 is a known warming agent. If we have observed a rise in average global temperature of ~1 C, would the increased CO2 levels, along with increases in CH4 and other greenhouse gases, be a likely explanation for the temperature rise?

1 some of it is man made
2 ghgs rise when the world warms, I dont think our contribution is all that significant

 

[El_Machinae]

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

As far as I can tell, this link is a decent indicator of each country's total contribution to CO2 emissions. It's not completely current (I'd be happy if some had a more recent one), and I don't know if it's appropriate to suggest that we're morally complicit for the CO2 emitted before 1992 (The Rio Conference), but after that people should have known better.

Since it appears that there might be a politically accepted 'maximum' to which we'll let the CO2 get to (450 ppm), I don't think monitoring CO2/capita on a yearly basis is the best metric. I think the best metric might be total CO2/ capita between 1992 levels and the 450 ppm upper limit. This gives each person a total allotment of CO2 they can morally produce. We'd probably figure that out at the nation level, though.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Oh yeah...forgot about that.

Why did the media make the April 21 Rapture a huge story and ignore the October 21 backup date (as well as the inane comet-will-destroy-the-world conspiracy theory from last month)?

Because there's an unwritten rule that there can only be one rapture or doomsday date per year ?

 

[emzie]

As part of the million-something science officials, I can assure you, we're not a cabal. Or so the overlords tell me.

 

[GoodGame]

More proof that serious scientific inquiry will trump over those who would corrupt it. Huzzahs are in order!

IDK, it's just saying what most peoples have already agreed on, which is double work I thought. Though I see they are discussing some issues that were previously controversial, and have an answer on them. So it is some new work.


To me, the main controversy of whether or not the warming in anthropogenic. Since this study avoids the topic, I don't consider it to be very important. In scientific journals, you generally can't keep re-discovering the same results and expect notoriety. They have done new science, but I don't consider this really a major triumph for not going after the tougher question.

 

[Antilogic]

IDK, it's just saying what most peoples have already agreed on, which is double work I thought. Though I see they are discussing some issues that were previously controversial, and have an answer on them. So it is some new work.


To me, the main controversy of whether or not the warming in anthropogenic. Since this study avoids the topic, I don't consider it to be very important. In scientific journals, you generally can't keep re-discovering the same results and expect notoriety. They have done new science, but I don't consider this really a major triumph for not going after the tougher question.

You'll forgive me for doubting the major debate is over the existence of global warming--giving what I have seen on Fox, as well as from my conservative friends off-line, the debate seemed to be very much about the whether the temperature is increasing.

While verification isn't the glorious work in science, it is a necessary job. (For reference, I did think it was verified before, based on the evidence, but apparently some others disagree with me. )

 

[Dreadnought]

This study still doesn't establish a connection between human activity and the rising temperatures.