(April 26, 2013 at 2:58 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: The Climate is going to change... we are well past the window of opportunity to have any affect on increase temperatures,

Actually, we are not. There is no "window". There was never any window. The impact of our action on climate change is always cummulative and effected by long latency from the instance of the action. It has always been too late to reduce the degree of antropogenic change next year. But it is not too late to reduce it for the next 100 years.

What the fuck is a lagit?

ergo - Climate change is so convoluted, so complex and requiring advanced understanding regarding multiple disciplines PLUS the required data to be CONCLUSIVE that no human could think up a plot line like this!

Yes, the climate is changing; yes, a warming trend is evident and part of the change. Yes, we could have done something more back in 1950's (?) when it was first noted and no, carbon trading has done nothing to reduce the anthropogenic cause, I am just wondering if the GFC may have had more of an impact on global temperatures?

And yes, there is much we can and are doing to reduce the pollution/ anthropogenic impact on our planet for the next hundred years and I have no idea what a lagit? is.

(July 3, 2012 at 7:25 am)Brian37 Wrote: I hate the constant slur and demonizing of lagit science. The idiots who take one cold day and stupidly say "it is a myth" are too stupid to even consider simple math they took in grade and middle school.

Climate change is not about one day. It no different than your grade school math class where you take large samples of numbers, add them up, and then divide them to find an average.

Our planet's temperature is GOING UP on average over the past 100 years, because scientists are constantly taking the temperatures and adding them up to find an average.

And because of more moisture in the atmosphere it is making greater extremes in snow storms, in hurricane frequency and tornados.

But regardless, EVEN IF, science was wrong, which it is not, we still have 7 billion humans over polluting the planet. So even without climate change it still is like having a toilet and not being able to flush it after the septic tank gets filled.

So we do as a species have to face this, or we will make our water sources and food sources worse and that no matter what, we need to focus on.

Whether or not it is a myth and whether or not it is human caused it is so annoying to notice those who know the least of science are most adamant on the subject.

Even if it is all going as the political hysterics believe (if one does not understand the science it is a belief) it throws up back to the Medieval question, Is this the best of all possible worlds (global climates)? Or was it the best of all possible worlds just before the Industrial Revolution? Or was it the best of all possible worlds some time earlier?

If the issue is food production, what is the loss compared to the gain of Siberia and Canada becoming breadbaskets of the world?

The idea that more moisture makes for more snow is interesting but it also takes the loss of more heat to precipitate snow. Keep in mind a one degree F in temperature is a 0.2% increase in absolute temperature. (I learned to ask believers why that was true and for the difference between temperature and heat before discussing the matter with them.)

I have been considering the subject for nearly 25 years. It is no secret.
The ^anti Environmentalist's Handbook

1) The melters NEVER said variability in climate until 6 or so years ago when the global mean temperature stopped increasing.
2) The cold of winter kills many, many times more people than the heat of summer.
3) For every seasonal weather extreme there has always eventually been a disclaimer that it was not due to global warming. Meaning those who make the claim they were are not listening to the people they like to claim are correct.

---

(April 25, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Gearbreak Wrote: I can believe that it's causing bigger snow storms. We're still getting snow where I live. last week was the most we've gotten all winter. could barely get out the front door.

Will that increase crop production over the longer summer growing seasons?

---

(April 25, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I think you are full of shit, G-C. Nothing new there.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...ature.html

Quote:Worldwide, 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record since thermometer-based observations began.

Notice what happens when you move the zero up and down. The zero point is arbitrary. You can shift it so the zero is at +1 or -1 or whatever.

(April 28, 2013 at 4:35 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(April 25, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I think you are full of shit, G-C. Nothing new there.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...ature.html

Notice what happens when you move the zero up and down. The zero point is arbitrary. You can shift it so the zero is at +1 or -1 or whatever.

Maybe I'm reading the plot wrong, but the zero seems to be the temperature at 1900 (start of the horizontal axis). Everything else is the difference to the temperature at 1900.

No matter how much we talk about it, there is only one known solution, nuclear power. The world cannot afford to go 100% nuclear before 2050 IF it were politically possible.

Every other non-fossil energy source not only requires breakthroughs which may never happen or never at an affordable price has a chance by present knowledge. But if all the breakthroughs were to happen tomorrow we are still decades away from a total replacement.

There are two costs, acquisition and ownership. The former is the enter energy producing system hardware. The latter is the cost of fuel and maintenance. If everything were to go swimmingly the only savings would be the fuel.

I have this persistent image of this same discussion a century from now after the world has adapted to higher temperatures on what to burn to keep it warmer.

(April 28, 2013 at 4:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 28, 2013 at 4:35 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Notice what happens when you move the zero up and down. The zero point is arbitrary. You can shift it so the zero is at +1 or -1 or whatever.

Maybe I'm reading the plot wrong, but the zero seems to be the temperature at 1900 (start of the horizontal axis). Everything else is the difference to the temperature at 1900.

IF that is the interpretation, temp in 1900, why not pick some later year? Say I pick the blue one that looks like around 1917 or the red one around 1922 and make either of them zero. That shifts the chart immensely. There is NOTHING meaningful or sacred about years that end in 0 or 00. 1900 is both arbitrary and capricious.

(April 29, 2013 at 12:22 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(April 28, 2013 at 4:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Maybe I'm reading the plot wrong, but the zero seems to be the temperature at 1900 (start of the horizontal axis). Everything else is the difference to the temperature at 1900.

IF that is the interpretation, temp in 1900, why not pick some later year? Say I pick the blue one that looks like around 1917 or the red one around 1922 and make either of them zero. That shifts the chart immensely. There is NOTHING meaningful or sacred about years that end in 0 or 00. 1900 is both arbitrary and capricious.

Of course, if we just follow the link min posted.... we may just find out how they did it:

Quote:This graph uses the 1901 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time.

The shape will remain the same, only the amount of blue and red gets exchanged.

(April 29, 2013 at 1:32 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 29, 2013 at 12:22 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: IF that is the interpretation, temp in 1900, why not pick some later year? Say I pick the blue one that looks like around 1917 or the red one around 1922 and make either of them zero. That shifts the chart immensely. There is NOTHING meaningful or sacred about years that end in 0 or 00. 1900 is both arbitrary and capricious.

Of course, if we just follow the link min posted.... we may just find out how they did it:

Quote:This graph uses the 1901 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time.

The shape will remain the same, only the amount of blue and red gets exchanged.

Picking years based upon centuries is letting that medieval guy who got the year of the birth of Jesus wrong set the rules. It is also interesting that anyone would consider US temps to be indicative of the world when it is such a small fraction of the world but that is a different discussion.

As you note the amount of red and blue changes but the impression given by this is that it matters in the least that deviations from a century long average exist. If in fact the zero is the average then the deviations from average are meaningless.

Remember the Romans grew Mediterranean grapes in Britain. While I expect the quality of the wine was commensurate with the food I have not heard of any such vineyards reopening. However I have read the temperatures in Britain declined from 1940 to 1975 and are now back where they were in 1940.

Again I have been following global climate change since it was the coming ice age. The heavy politicization of global melting which, embarrassingly, includes the scientists which is ordinarily an ethical violation.