The terms global warming and climate change have both been commonly used to describe the same phenomenon (i.e. rising global temperatures primarily due to human industrial CO2 emissions) for more than 50 years now. If you only hear 'climate change' you may be primarily relying on conservative news sources as they've made a concerted effort to use only that term.
I honestly wasn't aware of this, and have indeed only heard the term Climate Change recently, although I don't watch typical news. I could care less what FOX news, BBC etc has to say on the matter (or any matter).
Most of what I have read on the subject comes from sources like www.nature.com. My personal criteria for reading a specific news source is them citing their sources. If it sounds like they are trying to put a political spin on something one way or the other then it gets tiring for me. Although, I will concede that as someone who really doesn't care much for politics, it may be difficult for me to detect anything but blatant spin doctoring.
I am certain at some point that I had read the explanation for the change in terminology. Something to do with climate change being more encompassing, since "warming" wasn't the only interaction being studied, even if it was the end result. Again, I'm not 100% certain that it was unbiased one direction or the other in this.
I could really care less about which term we use, so long as we both just agree they are the same thing. :)
Lots of informative stuff
Thanks for that explanation CB. That does make more sense with you filling in some of the gaps for me. As for how it was being taught, as thejeff pointed out above, it could have simply been poor education from a teacher who simply wasn't informed enough to teach the subject.
No, we pretty much knew everything I've gone over above since the 1960s. It probably just hadn't made it's way down to the middle school level yet.
Are you positing that we haven't learned anything new in regards to climate change/global warming since 1960?
If the nine most respected oncologists in the world tell you that you need chemotherapy to stop the spread of a virulent cancer while a tenth random unknown doctor tells you that you don't have cancer at all and just need to meditate with a special crystal to feel better is it really 'moderate' to 'see both sides'? Doesn't seem so to me.
You misrepresent me here sir/mam. My point was that I don't have any kind of loyalty to either political party that has used this as a platform. I sincerely only care about the science behind it.
Your example honestly screams false equivalency to me. A person's political choice is ideological and really doesn't have anything to do with medical procedures or terminal diseases. At a high level you could argue it affects what standard of care you have access to, but the example you are providing above doesn't really cover that.
Maybe I'm taking your example in a direction you didn't intend it. If I'm misunderstanding your point I apologize, but it doesn't make sense to me in response to what I said. My whole point was that I'm not drawing conclusions based on party lines. I couldn't care less about the party lines.
So... the rich climate scientists in their fancy mansions are pulling a fast one on us and the poor starving fossil fuel tycoons?
No. Who said the climate scientists were rich? Who stated the fossil fuel tycoons were poor? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out that there was a lot of money to be made in grants, and those grants are easier to win if your field of study happens to be in a field that significantly affects the population at large. Full quote to end.
I find the idea that this field of research wouldn't be getting spun by both sides a very slim possibility. As I stated before, I don't care about the party lines. I don't have a political horse in this race. Obviously politicians do, and they may or may not be for benevolent reasons.
We could sit and ask each other questions along these lines all day long and turn it into a political studies discussion, but I find that boring, and it honestly does a disservice to the topic at hand in my opinion.
Does the oil industry stand to lose a lot of money from climate change/global warming? Most certainly.
Does this proving true allow the democratic party to push the economics in a direction they find more to their liking? Probably.
Is there a lot of money in grants awarded for the subject of climate change/global warming? Yes.
I am going to state it again, because I can't emphasis it enough, I don't care about the politics behind it. I find the science (information you were providing before that filled in holes for me for example) interesting. On the other hand the politics behind it are tired and boring in my opinion.
Cue claims that doing anything about global warming would destroy the economy in 3... 2... 1...
*sigh* Nope... you won't hear anything about how this affects the economy from my end, because I really don't think it affects it in a way that is significant enough to fret about.
Fear mongering does affect policy and scientific research though. Take "Big Tobacco" vs the electronic cigarette industry for example. I have never seen such levels of FUD built right into research papers. Not to mention the fact that the scientific method was all but completely disregarded, and data was so cherry picked, that it is obvious a specific end result was paid for. I'm not saying there are not still health concerns regarding e-cigs. There is plenty more research that really needs to be done. There are also people trying to push an agenda through this research as well though. That's where we have to be vigilant. Nobody should be worried about whether the result of the research damages some companies' bottom line.
I'm not saying that global warming/climate change research is exactly the same. My point is that, if there is a way to make money from something, someone is likely to engage in that. If there is research that is likely to point out your product is killing people, there are people who would spend money to bury that. If there is research that benefits product X over product Y...
It really really doesn't.
I find it hard to believe that there aren't a whole lot of people with a whole lot of money tied up in this. People who want the outcome one way or another. To say that none of the published research papers on the matter could have ever been influenced by these outside forces is absurd.
Do I have hard evidence of this? No I don't. On the other hand I would be naive to think that it couldn't have happened. Therefore, the point holds water.
Now, all of that said, I'd really just like to learn more about the situation, from anyone else that wants to discuss it, and I really don't care about the political posturing. Debate is fine on the merits of the science itself to me.
The first half of your response I quite enjoyed. Can we have more discourse along those lines please? :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who is very literally writing a grant to fund scientific research today (YAY PROCRASTINATION), I am not sure you really understand how the scientific process works in regards funding and such.
If scientists were manipulating data to oversell/fake anthropogenic climate change, I can almost certainly guarantee that some other scientist would post a rebuttal. You are just not going to get the majority of the world's climate scientists to agree on ANYTHING, since tearing down the result of other studies is a great way to ensure that your own research is published. Consensus (which is effectively what is going on in climate research) is actually worse for funding situation. If climate scientists really want to ensure future funding they would actually not come to a consensus, because arguing over the most basic questions is a lot more publishable. As is, many of the arguments in the literature of late are more about fine-tuning model parameters or seeing how the models respond or accurately replicate events in geologic record.
Furthermore, NSF and related US funding agencies (and other countries like Australia and the UK I believe have similar problems) have been increasingly getting their funding cut. Grant money is far from easy to get. Its incredibly time consuming with often minimal chances of getting funding, even if you get perfect scores on the evaluation criteria (current funding level is less than 1 in 4 proposals). Often grants have to be submitted 2 to three times, with a 6 month turn around time. And that funding mostly goes to the school via overhead or for funding research expenses. Scientists are not lined their pockets with grant money.
IF you want to look for profit-motivated entities, look to the oil industry, which is a goliath in potential funding versus NSF and other bodies. If researchers were interested in getting sweet funding for their research/labs, they wouldn't be pitching a climate change narrative that says fossil fuels lead to a warming environment. They would be saying the exact opposite and sucking up to Big Oil for research money.
It's chaos people. Using current modeling techniques it is literally impossible to model climate better than a good mathematician, trained in the basics of climate physics/chemistry, can in a few minutes with her RPN calculator and scratch paper.
It is literally impossible for you to make a statement more incorrect than that one.
Well, there's hard evidence that various oil companies were internally operating on the basis that climate change was happening while funding studies and publicity against it. That side is perfectly clear.That climate scientists and research institutes are doing anything similar is little more than speculation. That they've been doing so secretly for decades worldwide in the face of hostile governments is a pretty wild hypothesis.
Good points thejeff, but could you clarify the second part for me? I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever heard hostile governments being brought up in the same discussion as climate change. Can you explain that in more detail, or at least point me in a direction to learn more about it?
As someone who is very literally writing a grant to fund scientific research today (YAY PROCRASTINATION), I am not sure you really understand how the scientific process works in regards funding and such.
If scientists were manipulating data to oversell/fake anthropogenic climate change, I can almost certainly guarantee that some other scientist would post a rebuttal. You are just not going to get the majority of the world's climate scientists to agree on ANYTHING, since tearing down the result of other studies is a great way to ensure that your own research is published. Consensus (which is effectively what is going on in climate research) is actually worse for funding situation. If climate scientists really want to ensure future funding they would actually not come to a consensus, because arguing over the most basic questions is a lot more publishable. As is, many of the arguments in the literature of late are more about fine-tuning model parameters or seeing how the models respond or accurately replicate events in geologic record.
Furthermore, NSF and related US funding agencies (and other countries like Australia and the UK I believe have similar problems) have been increasingly getting their funding cut. Grant money is far from easy to get. Its incredibly time consuming with often minimal chances of getting funding, even if you get perfect scores on the evaluation criteria (current funding level is less than 1 in 4 proposals). Often grants have to be submitted 2 to three times, with a 6 month turn around time. And that funding mostly goes to the school via overhead or for funding research expenses. Scientists are not lined their pockets with grant money.
IF you want to look for profit-motivated entities, look to the oil industry, which is a goliath in potential funding versus NSF and other bodies. If researchers were interested in getting sweet funding for their research/labs, they wouldn't be pitching a climate change narrative that says fossil fuels lead to a warming environment. They would be...
These are all really good points as well MMCJawa. I have to concede that the scientists tearing each other down would likely be more profitable than consensus. Just to be clear, I'm not saying Climate Change isn't occurring, or is in anyway a myth. If you are looking at the data from an objective standpoint, you can clearly see things are warming up. There is absolutely a warming trend. I won't try to argue that point with anyone.
What I'm not certain on is whether this will actually be disastrous for us, and if so, what that timetable actually looks like for us to turn it around. It seems like that's currently where the questions and unknowns are.
In other words, we know it's happening (and I do agree with that), but are we certain what the consequences are, and are we certain we can actually fix it. Those are the things I can't seem to find a consensus on.
|
Are you positing that we haven't learned anything new in regards to climate change/global warming since 1960?
No, just that the general overview information that >I< was filling in was already known in the 1960s.
Your example honestly screams false equivalency to me. A person's political choice is ideological
My point was that I don't believe there IS a political choice here... at least not a valid one. Scientists overwhelmingly support one position on this issue. The handful who do not are either cranks, funded by the fossil fuel industry, or both. Thus, treating this as a 'choice' between two equally possible scenarios seems invalid to me. Rather, it is a choice between clearly established science and easily disproven nonsense.
No. Who said the climate scientists were rich? Who stated the fossil fuel tycoons were poor? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out that there was a lot of money to be made in grants, and those grants are easier to win if your field of study happens to be in a field that significantly affects the population at large
Do not people who make "a lot of money" become rich?
Basically, NO there is NOT a lot of money to be made from research grants. If there were, climate scientists would have a lot of money. They do not.
I find the idea that this field of research wouldn't be getting spun by both sides a very slim possibility.
Scientists who 'spin' things are generally known as frauds. Thus, I would NOT expect spin on 'both sides' of the scientific debate. One side exists ONLY because of spin, and the other side is populated by the vast majority of scientists who actually follow the evidence.
Does this proving true allow the democratic party to push the economics in a direction they find more to their liking? Probably.
Please explain. How does global warming push economics in 'democratic' directions?
Is there a lot of money in grants awarded for the subject of climate change/global warming? Yes.
THIS is true. The distinction between this and your other statements on grants is that this does not state that the money goes to the researchers. Research is often expensive and thus requires a lot of grant money... but the scientists themselves do not receive a lot of money for performing the research.
I find it hard to believe that there aren't a whole lot of people with a whole lot of money tied up in this. People who want the outcome one way or another.
So... who? Solar and Wind power generators stand to make a lot of money... but until the past few years they didn't have any money to be engaging in lobbying or funding biased research. Heck, their products weren't even financially viable until recently... so who is it that you supposed benefits financially AND had the pre-existing funds to bias results?
Keep in mind... the fundamental basics of global warming theory haven't changed since Arrhenius first proposed them in 1896. What financial interests was HE working on behalf of?
The first half of your response I quite enjoyed. Can we have more discourse along those lines please? :)
I'd be happy to, but note... you've written more on the subjects you ostensibly don't want to discuss. I'm merely responding. :]
Are you positing that we haven't learned anything new in regards to climate change/global warming since 1960?No, just that the general overview information that >I< was filling in was already known in the 1960s.
This is what I suspected. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't applying context to your statement that wasn't purposely implied. :)
Your example honestly screams false equivalency to me. A person's political choice is ideologicalMy point was that I don't believe there IS a political choice here... at least not a valid one. Scientists overwhelmingly support one position on this issue. The handful who do not are either cranks, funded by the fossil fuel industry, or both. Thus, treating this as a 'choice' between two equally possible scenarios seems invalid to me. Rather, it is a choice between clearly established science and easily disproven nonsense.
Ah, I see where the confusion is here. My earlier statement of "I don't have a horse in this race" wasn't supposed to indicate that I am considering the possibility that climate change isn't real. I can see how me kind of pushing that in the middle of the sentence the way I did unfortunately implied that now. That statement was kind of meant to be a warning in advance to say "Just because I might sound like I agree with some people on things, doesn't mean I adhere to your ideology."
In other words, I don't want people to misunderstand my consideration of their points to mean that I am backing any particular person or group, their's or otherwise.
I'm honestly not very good with communication. I tend to take a lot of things literally that aren't meant to be, and I usually don't imply anything. Which to be fair throws people off, especially when I don't think to watch for how things I say could be implied to mean something other than I was intending, based on surrounding context.
Sorry about that. :)
No. Who said the climate scientists were rich? Who stated the fossil fuel tycoons were poor? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out that there was a lot of money to be made in grants, and those grants are easier to win if your field of study happens to be in a field that significantly affects the population at largeDo not people who make "a lot of money" become rich?
Basically, NO there is NOT a lot of money to be made from research grants. If there were, climate scientists would have a lot of money. They do not.
Point taken. In fact MMCJawa and thejeff did a pretty good job of pointing out the flaws in my assumption.
I find the idea that this field of research wouldn't be getting spun by both sides a very slim possibility.Scientists who 'spin' things are generally known as frauds. Thus, I would NOT expect spin on 'both sides' of the scientific debate. One side exists ONLY because of spin, and the other side is populated by the vast majority of scientists who actually follow the evidence.
Again, this does make sense. I appreciate you pointing it out.
Does this proving true allow the democratic party to push the economics in a direction they find more to their liking? Probably.Please explain. How does global warming push economics in 'democratic' directions?
I suppose I should have phrased that better. Without really looking into it, my initial assumption was that sensationalizing the subject could allow either party to steer things (not necessarily just economic matters) in a way they find more preferable. I suppose we could simply call that "politics as usual" though. Both sides sensationalize things, and I suppose there is nothing really wrong about it.
I just find politics distasteful in general I guess. So any time someone in politics is able to use something I find interesting as a talking point I get disgruntled about it.
It was a point that wasn't going anywhere. I was just being a grump. lol
The first half of your response I quite enjoyed. Can we have more discourse along those lines please? :)I'd be happy to, but note... you've written more on the subjects you ostensibly don't want to discuss. I'm merely responding. :]
Right, I understand what you are saying, but your initial response to me I think was due to a misunderstanding of where I originally stood. Odds are we agree on more of this stuff than we disagree on. I'm just really not interested in the political angles for as much as I can avoid it. Looking back, I probably just shouldn't have mentioned it in an regard, including my opposition to it if I had wanted to stay out of that part.
Lesson learned. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm not certain on is whether this will actually be disastrous for us,
Depends on how you define 'disastrous' and what we do to prevent that.
For example, residents of the various northern Alaskan villages and low lying Pacific islands that have been abandoned due to global warming could make a good argument that it has already been "disastrous" for them.
and if so, what that timetable actually looks like for us to turn it around.
Similar problem of definitions.
Let's take the most commonly cited 'danger limit' of 2C and the median climate sensitivity estimate of about 3C as starting points for discussion. Arrhenius discovered that greenhouse forcings are logarithmic... basically, each time you double the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (e.g. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm to 1120 ppm) the temperature goes up by the same amount as the previous doubling(s). If for simplicity we ignore the non-logarithmic feedbacks (e.g. ice albedo) for the moment, and treat the entire 3C expected warming as logarithmic then we can solve for the atmospheric CO2 level which would be expected to cause us to hit the 2C 'danger limit';
X * ln(560 ppm / 280 ppm pre-industrial CO2) = 3C
X = 4.33
4.33 * ln(Z ppm future CO2 / 280 ppm pre-industrial CO2) = 2C
Z = 444 ppm
We recently passed 400 ppm and atmospheric levels have been increasing by about 2 ppm each year for several decades now. So... 44 / 2 = about 22 years until we pass the 2C 'danger limit' if we continue with roughly our current emissions.
However, some scientists argue that the equilibrium sensitivity will be higher than the 3C mean... in which case we'd have less time, or that the 'danger limit' should be 1.5C... in which case we're already hosed.
Conversely, a handful of scientists (the same who previously denied that global warming existed at all) argue that equilibrium climate sensitivity will be significantly less than 3C... in which case we'd have plenty of time. Unfortunately, we've already observed over 1C warming since pre-industrial... which is right on track with the 3C warming expected for doubling at the atmospheric CO2 level. Thus, those claiming we'll only see 1C for a doubling of CO2 are already wrong and those claiming we'll only see 2C are betting that some massive magical cooling feedback will show up and change the observed trend any day now.
And now from the Libertarian Candidate:
"We don't have to worry about climate change, because eventually the Sun WILL EXPLODE!" Yes, he capitalized the final two words.
Ironically I've only seen MEDIA reports about the heat of 2016 being hotter thus far.Is this media? It's titled "Report" (as part of the "State of the Climate Report" series) and it's issued by one of the US agencies that is responsible for tracking this thing, not by a news agency.
I quote, "For the 15th consecutive month, the global land and ocean temperature departure from average was the highest since global temperature records began in 1880. This marks the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The July 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous July record set in 2015 by 0.06°C (0.11°F). July 2016 marks the 40th consecutive July with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average."
That report doesnt' say 2016 is the hottest year. Where did you read that?
2016 isn't even over yet, we don't have a full picture. Data sets need to be corrected (like our area, that monthly has had a continuing problem with our area reports, where it is reporting the exact opposite of what's been happening. If it were a true analysis, I'd say something is fishy with it because someone is using false information to try to come to some conclusion), the overall year needs to be seen, and information needs to be completely gathered. That information probably won't be in till the end of December at the earliest.
The report lists that past 15 months, but that is NOT 2016. A media reporter may think that means all of 2016, but that would be an incorrect assessment. 2015 is still having it's more specific analysis and comparisons still completed (part of that may be due to some of those comparisons need information from 2016 interestingly enough). 2016 won't have a complete picture until 2017.
Not sure why you think that report says 2016 is the hottest on record. It talks about the past 15 months, and the past half of a year for 2016...which is hardly 2016 as the year as of yet.
Furthermore, you are trying to use a monthly (as opposed to the annuals) to try to support your idea that 2016 is the hottest on record?
We won't know that until we have a full record of 2016.
No offense, but I'm not sure what your point was, unless it was to show how media may get the idea to spread a fallacious report that 2016 is the hottest year on record. One could try to draw the conclusion that 2016 is the hottest thus far, and that's one way the media may phrase it...but we don't know the real idea of what has happened in 2016 until we get the bigger picture.
The last few months of the year are actually going to be quite vital in regards to how it compares to 2015. Once all the data has been corrected and then analyzed, it may be that 2016 will be hotter in general. It is too early to tell right now.
Unless it is your habit to rely everything on a single statement from a monthly (or the monthlies) rather than the annual.
However you want to look at it though. The more accurate information can be drawn from the FTP where the reports go (which I believe is where they get the data to generate that monthly). There should be a link to it in that report somewhere, you will probably need a TAR or GZ opener for it though.
Anyways, feel as you want to feel and believe as you want to believe. These days I'm not here to really change your opinion or convince you as much as simply discuss the stuff right now as well as my month to month experience. (which I'm getting too old for, I need a new hobby).
Just as an example, for our area they are currently reporting that we are between 2.5 and 1.8 off base and around 3 degrees WARMER than what the recordings state currently.
This should be corrected in time for the annual reports. For some reasons the Monthlies are reporting this very strangely this year. I don't know why. It's an anamoly I think I even reported on earlier this year in this thread.
I've been assured it WILL be cleaned up, if it isn't, then I would say something is definitely fishy going on.
It's started the snow season far earlier this year than any other time in the past decade, the next few months could be very interesting to see what happens next.
This is something I expect will be fixed in the Annuals, but the monthlies happen too quickly for things like this to be corrected from what I understand.
Even if this is two months AFTER the actual monthly information and a month after the monthly intial.
However, that said, even now, one reason it would show a variation that far off, even if we are in a colder year is because it still has several of the colder months (to balance out the summer months) to go. Any average for 2016 will show a hotter year right now, even if it were the coldest on record (well, unless it was REALLY cold or REALLY HOT, but I don't think we've seen one of those (cold, we saw a hot one last year) for decades, in which case there may be problems with crops and other items).
How are global temperatures measured? I mean, the very basics. Boxes everywhere measure, data gets collected somehow. I would suppose by national meteorology authorities? Is there quality requirements for this? Does the data get published in original form or are there possibilities of tweaking it? Are the boxes properly calibrated? Has the spread of cities been properly corrected for in the placement of the boxes? Who decides where the boxes should be placed? Do we trust Albania not to tweak their data? Could interests in one direction or another warp this process? Who puts the data together? Is this process open and can anyone do it?
How are global temperatures measured? I mean, the very basics. Boxes everywhere measure, data gets collected somehow. I would suppose by national meteorology authorities? Is there quality requirements for this? Does the data get published in original form or are there possibilities of tweaking it? Are the boxes properly calibrated? Has the spread of cities been properly corrected for in the placement of the boxes? Who decides where the boxes should be placed? Do we trust Albania not to tweak their data? Could interests in one direction or another warp this process? Who puts the data together? Is this process open and can anyone do it?
Lots of questions there.
From my perspective...and only that...not speaking for everything, just my local area.
Yes, there are "boxes" or stations as you would. Not necessarily a box though. There are quality requirements for these.
The information for many sites are published as are. For example, there is one at the local airport and at the golf course. These are very easy to monitor electronically. Those further out are harder. The one at the Airport supposedly takes into account the urbanization that is around it. One of the reasons for those further out would be to avoid any problems dealing with urbanization, and hence no accusations could be made to "boxes" that are not within the urban sprawl...aka...concrete/asphalt, etc..
For some of them there probably would be ways to tweak it, but why would we want to do that?
The boxes should be properly calibrated. Many of them are used for meteorology forecasts and weather forecasts as well. It is in the best interest of everyone to have accurate information. A prime example is the airport. If it is off, it could create a very dangerous situation for the pilots who want to land. They need accurate information to make life and death decisions in flight regarding taking off and landing at the airport. There are other good reasons that the information is accurate beyond just recording the information.
I have NO idea who decides where the "boxes" aka...stations should be placed. I don't do that, nor am I involved with that. I suppose some are obvious...you need a weather station at someplace, and there you go.
I have NO idea about Albania. I don't deal with Albania. I would suppose they give us honest information. Certainly the electronic recordings would be accurate, at least those they also use for forecasts and other elements dealing with climate, weather, and environment.
Interests in one direction or another COULD affect the reports afterwards, or, if someone at the point of collection wanted to change information, that could be done. I'm not sure why someone would want to do that, but it would be possible I suppose.
If I were to do that, it would be in one of two spots. You would need to be someone who had central control of information. Most of the other information has ways to check against it's veracity and accuracy.
I'd either do it with a computer programmer who would hack the records sent in (all records are now sent in via some sort of electronic format electronically, at least for what I volunteer with). So, probably someone who doesn't even know what the information really is...but they'd need to be one who understood how the program works that gathers everything and inputs it into the databases.
Or, I would do it with a twerked analysis. The second is far more likely to be caught though. The first is less likely because a computer programmer probably isn't going to be the one with training in Climate Change to actually know what to tweak without it seeming like a vastly sudden and abrupt change that shows something wrong is going on.
The question is WHY one would want to do that though.
The data is put together by different authorities and organizations. NOAA actually would be one of those who puts together information (that Orfamay listed above...though it's called a report, it's more like a generalized data report rather than an analytical report from my perspective).
As for the process, all those that I know involved have been trained to some degree or another. One very nice lady who went through training in the past year actually has the interesting thing of participating in precipitation measuring. It is done on a trust basis. She is one of a few that whenever we have precipitation, puts a container out and measures how much falls.
Could she change what she reports? She's been trained NOT to do that, and how to do it accurately. She's a volunteer. She's helping out. Why would she want to make her own information untrustworthy? Eventually, if it deviated from enough of the others, questions would arise and that would mean possibly losing her ability to help out, or further training.
However, yes, it is possible to help in various aspects of meterological and climate measurements and recordings. From what I understand you stand a much better chance of being selected if you live in a more rural area. The more rural, the easier it is to get involved as there are not (obviously) as many people available to help out. I am in a rural area, so it's possible those who tell me this are biased towards rural areas (just as my caveat). I haven't done this while living in a major city, so this could just be their hearsay.
At least, for the area I'm in. I don't know about the other areas of the US even, or if they operate the same way we do. If they do, you can volunteer if you want.
If I recall, you are in Sweden though...not sure how it works in Sweden or nations outside the US.
oatmeal creme pie cookies anyone?
oatmeal creme pie cookies anyone?
SHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh
I am learning.
|
|
How are global temperatures measured?
They aren't.
Rather, global temperature anomalies are measured.
Why anomalies and not temperatures? Well, to eliminate some of the potential problems you assumed in your subsequent questions. Things like calibration and siting could introduce small differences between stations A and B... but that's irrelevant because what is being measured is the trend at station A and the trend at station B. It doesn't matter if their baselines are different because we are measuring the change at each station.
I would suppose by national meteorology authorities?
Amongst others. There are multi-national aggregates, individual nations with monitoring in multiple countries, independent sub-networks, et cetera. There is a lot of overlap and redundancy... thermometers aren't exactly hard to come by. Which is good because it allows multiple sources for cross verification.
Is there quality requirements for this?
There are guidelines for siting and measuring procedures (e.g. same time of day) and unreliable results are purged or adjusted for by some of the analytical methods.
Does the data get published in original form or are there possibilities of tweaking it?
Data used by the most commonly cited anomaly calculations is available in original form.
Has the spread of cities been properly corrected for in the placement of the boxes?
Yes, the data is adjusted for urbanization. That being said, the trends shown by the unadjusted data are virtually identical to the adjusted data. Multiple studies found that the unadjusted data actually came out with a very slightly higher warming trend.
Are the boxes properly calibrated? Who decides where the boxes should be placed?
As above, not really relevant for temperature anomalies, but as most of these temperature sites serve dual purposes (i.e. reporting the actual current temperature) yes they are usually calibrated and are sited based on the standards of whichever authority they fall under.
Do we trust Albania not to tweak their data? Could interests in one direction or another warp this process?
Trust isn't an issue because any such manipulation would be easily detected by overlapping measurements. Stations showing temperatures out of line with others in the region are investigated to identify the mismatch. There are also entirely separate temperature anomaly records generated by weather balloons and satellites, which can't be influenced by agencies on the ground, but again show virtually identical results.
Who puts the data together? Is this process open and can anyone do it?
There are several different groups. NASA Goddard, NOAA NCDC, UK Met office Hadley CRU, and Japan Meteorology Agency are the most commonly cited. All of those are completely open and reproducible. Each uses different methodologies and often different sub-sets of available measurements... yet still come up with nearly identical results because small differences average out at the global level.
Several years ago scientist Richard Muller bought in to conspiracy theories about the temperature data all being faked (the 'Climategate' e-mail misrepresentations) and set up a project (funded by Koch Industries) to prove it. He gathered other global warming skeptics and some top notch data analysis statisticians and set to work on an independent anomaly record which he humbly called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project... or BEST project. They used ALL available temperature station data and sophisticated data analysis techniques to identify and adjust outliers. With massive funding dedicated solely to analyzing the data gathered by others they were able to put together the longest and likely most precise anomaly record ever.
Again, the results were virtually identical to all the other records.
|
Big thread.
Oceans store lots of CO2. Both in dissolved state and as fixed carbon in plant material (specifically algae). As temperature of water increases, its capacity to store dissolved gases decreases. Ocean temperatures are rising. Globally.
Permanent ice also traps large quantities of CO2. There a bunch of ice previously considered permanent that is currently melting in Antarctica. Unlike the northern ice, this stuff is land based and so if enough ice melts then water levels will rise. (Floating ice already displaces its mass so when it melts, no level change)
Large forested regions have been shown to create cloud mass and absorb enough heat as to affect temperatures in vast areas. Humans are cutting them down at very alarming rates. We've done this in past in fact, which created deserts where once forest thrived. Areas that once recorded large amounts of cloud cover, indeed some areas that created clouds for other areas to receive rain, are starting to decline. The snowball effect here is that if rainforests can't maintain their own rain clouds through transpiration rate, then the rainforest declines even faster,
Clouds trap heat. Both from the sun directly, and re radiated heat from the Earth. Heat travels in three main ways. Radiation, convection and conduction. The problem is that the source of radiated heat can diminish its energy somewhat. So heat from the sun composes a higher band of the IR range than re radiated heat from the earth. As such it penetrates areas of cloud much faster and deeper than Earths re eradicated heat. This means the sun keeps heating us long after the radiated earth heat can no longer escape cloud cover as it doesn't have the energy to penetrate the already warm clouds. That's partly the Venus effect. What's more, when the earth rotates so it is night in an area, the trapped heat from the clouds now releases into the night sky keeping the area warmer. Deserts are freezing at night time because there's no water to trap heat and maintain steady temperatures.
I guess it doesn't really matter whether humans are making the current situation go faster or not. It's happening, if we don't address a few key issues we're going to face some pretty stark changes to the world.
Clearing forests at the rate we are removes CO2 fixation and is a self fulfilling desertification process. Hard to predict the outcome in terms of Global temperatures, but still means anything needing oxygen percentages to remain in the 17% ball park (atmospherically) is pretty much screwed.
Temperature change in oceans will lead to CO2 dumping, on a scale that has previously been thought to cause extinction events. pH levels will change so dramatically that algae will die on mass, further relapsing trapped Carbon and eroding the fundamental base of ocean food chains. Pretty sure more humans rely on ocean based foods than land based ones.
Seriously, at this point, with overwhelming evidence showing the global temperature is going up, it's time to stop fighting over how much negative impact humans have in this situation, and start coming up with ways to positively impact instead.
Fossil fuels etc are big in media and government because ....well money honestly. Entire economies are affected by it. Wars are being fought even now because of it. Ultimately though, deforestation, ice melts and oceanic changes are what's gonna screw us. Probably time to invest as much money into slowing or preventing those things as is currently being put in to fighting over fossil fuels.
I mean, once we're sure we can survive global temperature increase in such a way a to ensure survival of not only our species, but as many others on the planet as possible, we can always go back to wars over fossil fuels.
How are global temperatures measured? I mean, the very basics. Boxes everywhere measure, data gets collected somehow. I would suppose by national meteorology authorities? Is there quality requirements for this? Does the data get published in original form or are there possibilities of tweaking it? Are the boxes properly calibrated? Has the spread of cities been properly corrected for in the placement of the boxes? Who decides where the boxes should be placed? Do we trust Albania not to tweak their data? Could interests in one direction or another warp this process? Who puts the data together? Is this process open and can anyone do it?
The protection against this is the collection of LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS, and lots more data points. This means that anomalies such as squirrels climbing into a station,and nesting on the electronics, or local youths setting one on fire, get weeded out. There's a lot of data analysis that goes into the process, it's more than just taking thermometer readings.
Not anyone can do it. It takes expertise, staff, resources, and time. As far cities go... cities are PART of the climate process. Being the massive heat islands they are, they're part of the data set as well.
|
|
How are global temperatures measured? I mean, the very basics. Boxes everywhere measure, data gets collected somehow. I would suppose by national meteorology authorities? Is there quality requirements for this? Does the data get published in original form or are there possibilities of tweaking it? Are the boxes properly calibrated? Has the spread of cities been properly corrected for in the placement of the boxes? Who decides where the boxes should be placed? Do we trust Albania not to tweak their data? Could interests in one direction or another warp this process? Who puts the data together? Is this process open and can anyone do it?The protection against this is the collection of LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS, and lots more data points. This means that anomalies such as squirrels climbing into a station,and nesting on the electronics, or local youths setting one on fire, get weeded out. There's a lot of data analysis that goes into the process, it's more than just taking thermometer readings.
Not anyone can do it. It takes expertise, staff, resources, and time. As far cities go... cities are PART of the climate process. Being the massive heat islands they are, they're part of the data set as well.
There are indeed requirements for working in meteorology. In Australia it requires q minimum science degree plus extra training for a year with the bureau of meteorology to work for,them.
Global,weather is driven by ocean currents. Water is a huge heat sink and takes a lot of energy to warm up, especially in large quantities like oceans. There are temperature beacons all over the worlds oceans, placed their by an international group of scientists as well as individual,companies. Their data is probably the most freely distributed data in the world of science. Every meteorology department can access their data as far as I'm aware.
Raw data is indeed available scrutiny, but not published openly. You could probably apply to access it though.
You really need to understand Syssyl, all climate scientists agree that the world is warming. However, they are divided in how much impact humans are having. One group of scientists thinks it's a lot, one group thinks it's a little. They all agree we are having an impact though.
Then there's the media and the politicians. They don't care about the science really. They care about sales, money and votes. Those guys will do whatever they can with the information and twist it to their own ends.
If want a really good idea of what's happening, go to university lectures, read scientific journals, watch scientific discussions sent from academic forums to the Internet. Get the science from the people conducting the science. Don't use general media not political rankings to make your decision.
Big thread.
Oceans store lots of CO2. Both in dissolved state and as fixed carbon in plant material (specifically algae). As temperature of water increases, its capacity to store dissolved gases decreases. Ocean temperatures are rising. Globally.
Permanent ice also traps large quantities of CO2. There a bunch of ice previously considered permanent that is currently melting in Antarctica. Unlike the northern ice, this stuff is land based and so if enough ice melts then water levels will rise. (Floating ice already displaces its mass so when it melts, no level change)
Large forested regions have been shown to create cloud mass and absorb enough heat as to affect temperatures in vast areas. Humans are cutting them down at very alarming rates. We've done this in past in fact, which created deserts where once forest thrived. Areas that once recorded large amounts of cloud cover, indeed some areas that created clouds for other areas to receive rain, are starting to decline. The snowball effect here is that if rainforests can't maintain their own rain clouds through transpiration rate, then the rainforest declines even faster,
Clouds trap heat. Both from the sun directly, and re radiated heat from the Earth. Heat travels in three main ways. Radiation, convection and conduction. The problem is that the source of radiated heat can diminish its energy somewhat. So heat from the sun composes a higher band of the IR range than re radiated heat from the earth. As such it penetrates areas of cloud much faster and deeper than Earths re eradicated heat. This means the sun keeps heating us long after the radiated earth heat can no longer escape cloud cover as it doesn't have the energy to penetrate the already warm clouds. That's partly the Venus effect. What's more, when the earth rotates so it is night in an area, the trapped heat from the clouds now releases into the night sky keeping the area warmer. Deserts are freezing at night time because there's no water to trap heat and maintain steady temperatures....
Bottom line economics however says, that unless you can show me where this will impact our bottom line in the next year or where we can make a profit off of it, it is not our corporate responsibility, nor should we be drafted into making it so. And corporate law requires that they take that position.
oatmeal creme pie cookies anyone?SHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh
I am learning.
Okay fine. You're learning. You can still eat while you learn right? ;)
Also climate change has been proven to me by the fact it's only NOW starting to cool off instead of like two weeks ago.
|
|
Drahliana, bottom line economics aren't going to be worth a damn when the environment stops supporting life (at least mammalian life at any rate).
In fact, Governments are likely to invoke changes in law sooner rather than later where environmental concern is in fact economic business. I suspect we'll see a shift from "prove I'm affecting the environment" to " prove you're not" really soon.
Interesting scientific paper just released shows CO2 levels are higher than 400ppm now. That's higher than they have been in the entire history of humans on earth. (According to projections from ice core samples,)
That fact is going to come back and kick corporate butts very very soon. The more carbon you're throwing out, the greater the chance this level will remain this high, or even higher.
oatmeal creme pie cookies anyone?SHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh
I am learning.
Okay fine. You're learning. You can still eat while you learn right? ;)
Also climate change has been proven to me by the fact it's only NOW starting to cool off instead of like two weeks ago.
Unfortunately too many people are still willing to buy Trump's line that it's a crisis manufactured by China to make us slow down our industry, or Gary Johnson's line that the Sun will explode before it becomes a problem we need worry about. (Yes, he pretty much said that.)
Drahliana, bottom line economics aren't going to be worth a damn when the environment stops supporting life (at least mammalian life at any rate).
In fact, Governments are likely to invoke changes in law sooner rather than later where environmental concern is in fact economic business. I suspect we'll see a shift from "prove I'm affecting the environment" to " prove you're not" really soon.
Interesting scientific paper just released shows CO2 levels are higher than 400ppm now. That's higher than they have been in the entire history of humans on earth. (According to projections from ice core samples,)
That fact is going to come back and kick corporate butts very very soon. The more carbon you're throwing out, the greater the chance this level will remain this high, or even higher.
In the USA, the corporates ARE the government, if not directly, than through their lobbying tools like ALEC, which literally write a good deal of the bills that go through Congress, or are literally staffing the Cabinet agencies charged with regulating them.
The news that you're referring to is that the cycle of rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmosphere as reached the point where the low levels aren't going below 400 ppm any time in the next few centuries.
The people that buy that need to see my Christmas video from 1994 when we had like 4 feet of snow. Then tell me again how it's not because of global warming I've had fewer white Christmases.
|
|
True for many countries Drahliana. But there's also international pressure and America just isn't the economic powerhouse it used to be honestly. Australia (where I live) has completely useless puppet governments, but they're all scared of losing overseas business so much that enough external pressure to make change will back them into a corner. The majority of our economy is based off oil and coal exports. But when people work out those things will actually just kill everyone, no one will buy.
We have enough intelligent businesses here in Australia to realise that time is coming and now we're seeing a big change in the push for alternate energies.
All we really need now is a mechanism for assisting in the fixing of carbon so that the rate we clear land stops contributing as much or more than it already is. Maybe photosynthetic building materials. That'd be pretty cool.
Had a few lighter thoughts that would probably fit into this thread. Not serious thoughts at all, more towards the entertainment spectrum.
The first thought. There is an old movie called Silent Running. In it they decide that they don't need plants anymore. They have these large ships that have the final plants and they are decommissioning them. The biologist on one of them decides that he is going to refuse and has robots and him to try to take care of it.
My thought, We need whatever they had to clear their air. How do they recycle all that CO2 without Trees, plants, and other CO2 vegetation?
Or is everyone else dead?
Second thought.
I was watching a cartoon with my kids tonight. In it, they had aquaman, who was cited as king and protector of the oceans. Well, believe it or not, the Ocean is considered to be very affected. If nothing else, the pollution from us is gathering in various parts of it in great plastic flotilla in the middle of the ocean. Then there's other affects that are slowly affecting various parts of the ocean and it's creatures.
What would Aquaman really do at this point if he were truly the protector of the ocean. If I were him, I probably would consider it under attack.
I seem to recall at times he's declared war on everyone on land...it would seem that would be his recourse at this point.
That could be an interesting comic to follow, and basically an ongoing theme that you could change Aquaman into trying to save the ocean from these surface dwellers attack on it via their Climate change policies and pollution.
As I said, just some light minded thoughts on things that don't matter. They are simply thoughts based off of entertainment vehicles...not the serious stuff that people have been discussing in the thread.
|
|
FWIW - I'm assuming a certain inertia is overcome with CO2 loading of the atmosphere and that when we pass a given threshold, for example the aforementioned 400ppm, it really means that the final value, should we go full tilt towards zero-CO2 energy sources, will still see us pass 450ppm or maybe even 500ppm.
No, it doesn't work that way.
There is 'inertia' in the warming effect of any given CO2 level, but not in the CO2 accumulation itself under current conditions.
That is, if we somehow cut our CO2 emissions roughly in half tomorrow then the atmospheric CO2 level could stay at 400 ppm indefinitely... there would be no ongoing accumulation because we are currently the sole drivers of the rising atmospheric CO2 level. There is no natural forcing of higher CO2 levels going on... indeed, without human emissions, natural processes would be slowly decreasing the atmospheric CO2 level currently.
Warming, on the other hand, would continue at a 'rapid' (by geological standards) rate for decades after CO2 levels stabilized and then more slowly for centuries thereafter. When scientists refer to keeping warming below a 2C 'danger limit' they are actually talking about the 'equilibrium climate sensitivity'... the point at which the Earth's energy inflow and outflow return to balance. That would take less than a century after atmospheric CO2 levels stopped rising and is important because such rapid warming places considerable stress on species to adapt. However, once that rapid warming ended there would continue to be slower warming feedback effects (e.g. ice melt and plant growth regions shifting planetary albedo) for hundreds of years... which in all likelihood would push the 2C 'short term' warming up to ~4C before it stopped entirely. Fortunately, that slower warming will be much easier for most species to adapt to. Unfortunately, it will still slowly submerge huge areas of coastline.
As to not going below 400 ppm again in our lifetimes... it IS theoretically possible... just not at all plausible. If we somehow cut all human industrial CO2 levels tomorrow the oceans and growing plants would continue to absorb ~2 ppm per year and then decreasing amounts as the atmospheric and oceanic carbon concentrations achieved a new balance over the course of a few decades. Theoretically, we might get back down to ~380 ppm. However, barring some other massive change, natural processes would thereafter require decades to centuries for each further 1 ppm reduction and we wouldn't see the 280 ppm pre-industrial level again for at least 100,000 years... and probably longer.
|
|
QB, what you are leaving out, or possibly are unaware of, is that the Paris Agreement targets will be updated every five years.
Basically, all that stuff about current targets being insufficient to solve the problem isn't some kind of big revelation... the Paris Agreement was always intended to ramp up as time goes by. The initial targets weren't supposed to solve the problem... only to get the whole world moving on significant reductions right away.
Nor is it bad news that actions taken by the US thus far will 'only' get us 80% of the way to our 2025 target. That leaves ten years to achieve the remaining 20%... which is virtually guaranteed if Clinton becomes president and likely even under Trump.
As to your belief that there is "no chance" of any other countries making their targets... particularly calling out China and India? Both of those countries are further along than the U.S and several others have already met their goals. Russia IS a problem child, but the way they are going they'll drive their economy into complete standstill again shortly.
The US, EU, China, and India together represent 60% of global CO2 emissions and all are making the changes necessary to decarbonize... as are most of the other nations. A few big countries like Russia, Japan, Australia, and Canada not pulling their weight is a problem, but we CAN bring global warming under control without them and there WILL be growing political and economic consequences for them as the rest of the world converts to clean power.
|
|
All that will still give us an approximate 4.1 °C rise in average global temp over the preindustrial condition.
If we were to stop converting from fossil fuels to clean energy sources... which is a completely implausible assumption.
There's a billion people in Africa and another billion-point-five in South America and SE Asia who want our standard of living. Telling 35% of the world, "No, sorry. We're already polluting too much", won't do the trick.
Which is irrelevant because there is no reason to say that. Rather, just as they skipped right over land line telephones to mobile, so too can they skip right over fossil fuels to clean power.
If the Paris Agreement isn't taking into account human nature in a Game Theoretic mode, then the talks will succeed but the CO2 emissions will not significantly decline.
CO2 emissions have already been significantly below projections. Rather than continuing to increase along with global economic activity, they have been flat since 2013.
There is no 'human nature' problem because renewable energy is rapidly becoming the least expensive source of energy world-wide. Nations are converting because it is in their long term AND short term best interest to do so.
We will end up with nuclear energy, I am sure of it. The other options have a huge amount of baggage associated with them, and nuclear energy (if you put OTT reactions aside) has a lot going for it.
People have very short memories regarding disasters.... the ultimate proof being US gun policy vs seemingly constant shootings at schools
Nuclear will win out
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have very short memories regarding disasters.... the ultimate proof being US gun policy vs seemingly constant shootings at schools
Nuclear will win out
What is going to do nuclear power in is not the disasters, but that it is forbiddingly expensive.
It produces no CO2. If fully expanded to cover the entire nuclear cycle, not just the fission steam engines, it can provide us with energy on a scale most people can't imagine. It can motivate breaking up the nuclear warheads everywhere, and maybe use them for something better than "blowing up the world a three-hundred and forty-sixth time".
|
|
Exactly.
People have already mostly forgotten about Fukushima... but it doesn't matter, because nuclear is now more expensive than wind and solar power.
Not to mention taking much longer to deploy, being more difficult to site, have hazardous byproducts, being dependant on a limited fuel source, potentially enabling proliferation of nuclear weapons, et cetera.
We do not have batteries that can deal with powering society at night. Wind is too unreliable. Limited fuel source is just a matter of building the rest of the plants as well. Once you get there, the hazardous waste is quite possible to use as well.
We do not have batteries that can deal with powering society at night. Wind is too unreliable. Limited fuel source is just a matter of building the rest of the plants as well. Once you get there, the hazardous waste is quite possible to use as well.
There are other methods of storing energy. On Maderia Island excess energy is used to pump water into giant holding tanks inside of mountains. At night that water is released to power hydroelectric turbines.
Other possibilities include giant flywheels inside of vacuumed housings.
Fact is even without exotic storage, cutting down fossil fuel energy production DURING the day is still a net improvement.
|
|
Sissyl, nuclear warheads are made from the bi product of nuclear power. You cannot "break them up" and use them for nuclear energy. The stuff in weapons is useless for energy production.
That's why everyone gets all upset when places like Iran and. North Korea built nuclear power plants, those energy forms immediately made them nuclear weapons capable.
As for other forms. You need to look into what Europe and the pacific island nations are doing. Solar farms, wind power, tidal power, geothermal etc. There are countries around the globe who have already replaced their entire power system with alternate energies. New Zealand for example, is almost completely coal free in its power production.
You don't want to replace a limited resource power system (coal) with another limited resource system (nuclear). That is a sure fire way to exascerbate the problem, not remedy it.
Also remember, most people are trying to find ways to keep Turbines spinning. That's what coal generators do. There are other ways of making electrons run through circuits without spinning big magnets. Solar is one example. They are easy to build and involve no moving parts. This means they are also very easy to maintain as you don't need people constantly servicing their moving parts to keep them running.
Unless you believe you can get people to use less energy with anything short of the chinese one-child policy enforcement, energy used is only going to rise. This is not a negotiable situation, I am afraid. Talk about how an increased efficiency is going to save us and reduce the energy used is delusional or uninformed. What remains is to keep producing more energy, but reducing the environmental impact of doing it. And if you do that, it's all well and good saying "It's going to be a mix", which of course is not saying anything substantial at all, but the truth is, it's going to be "everything". Every ounce of energy we can get our hands on WILL be used eventually. Ignoring nuclear power because it is expensive is a ridiculous argument, sadly.