climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
if you identify as a scientist, you should qualify your responses
for instance: "they are believed to have been far less rapid, based on a weak understanding of past changes and a wild guess at possible future changes"
Tinark
Active member
There are multiple lines of evidence that are in strong agreement about past climate. Not to mention there is no known mechanism that would account for such rapid climate change in the past. The earth has never had such a rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in a 100 year period. It's nuts to believe that such a large increase has zero affect on climate given all the evidence to the contrary.
Besides, even if some changes in the past were more rapid than currently believed, what on earth does that have anything to do with the fact that rapid changes are a negative thing and something to be avoided if possible?
i'd be very interested in seeing the technique that allows one to extrapolate 100 year increments in 100 million year old sedimentary rock
Tinark
Active member
i'd be very interested in seeing the technique that allows one to extrapolate 100 year increments in 100 million year old sedimentary rock
Why does this matter? I assume you agree that rapid climate change is negative because it gives humans and also other life forms little time to adapt. Therefore, if the rapid change can be slowed down or avoided, it may be something worth considering, no?
Here's how rapidly the CO2 levels are increasing:
i'd really like to see those vostock ice cores that gave them the data for that red line :chuckle:
Tinark
Active member
Are you under the impression that Al Gore is a climate scientist, and that these quotes are from a scientific paper he published and was vetted by other climate scientists? If not, then why do you keep quoting junk that is irrelevant to the discussion of the science?
Tinark
Active member
No need, we can measure how much CO2 is getting added to the atmosphere each year and form reasonable predictions about future additions :chuckle:
Tinark
Active member
tetelestai,
If you want to have credibility on the topic, why not discuss the information on this site:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Stop using your junk sources that you enjoy so much and try discussing the real science for a change.
If you want to have credibility on the topic, why not discuss the information on this site:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Stop using your junk sources that you enjoy so much and try discussing the real science for a change.
we can estimate how much carbon is being extracted ad consumed and make an assumption that combustion will release it into the atmosphere as CO2 and that it will stay there unchanged
now, how accurate those estimates and assumptions are? :idunno:
based on models that may or may not be valid :chuckle:
Tinark
Active member
All carbon sinks are pretty well accounted for. Natural sources of carbon are also well accounted for. The only variable is the amount added by burning fossil fuels. We can get pretty accurate CO2 concentration predictions by projecting CO2 added from fossil fuels.
Yes, if humans burn less fossil fuels in the future (seems quite unlikely), the projections will be off. You can easily build a projection using multiple scenarios, however.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is one of the simpler things to predict. The "may not" is very unlikely.
Tinark
Active member
On the arctic ice:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/#.UxeB3PldW0I
Al Gore, a non-climate scientist, said it "could" be gone by 2013.
Yes, its true that its not gone, but that has little to do with the fact that the extent of the ice is rapidly declining.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/#.UxeB3PldW0I
Al Gore, a non-climate scientist, said it "could" be gone by 2013.
Yes, its true that its not gone, but that has little to do with the fact that the extent of the ice is rapidly declining.
Tinark
Active member
And right wing fundies always think that scientists involved in things they disagree with for political or religious reasons understand nothing. They think random quotes from scientists in 1970 and Al Gore is sufficient to draw this conclusion.
i suppose some of them do :idunno:
Tinark
Active member
Then the relevant question is whether or not there is good reason to believe that there is significant sources of error in the CO2 predictions given the evidence dealing with that phenomena in particular. Not whether scientists have been wrong about some things in the past.
Furthermore, scientists discuss uncertainty and work to quantify it. Uncertainty doesn't mean they know nothing. Uncertainty means that we have a range of estimates.
See the range there? Why do you think that range is insufficient to account for the uncertainty?
ouch
too big
too big
Tinark
Active member
Fixed
GuySmiley
Well-known member
:wave: I know why.
See the range there? Why do you think that range is insufficient to account for the uncertainty?
Look at your chart, the dark blue line is actual readings, and its outside of the range of uncertainty. Sooooo that range is insufficient. Nice chart.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mar_09_co2_report.pdf