DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The world is still burning

This pandemic draws a direct parallel to the views of the Republican Party. The rest of the world gave this disease proper attention, and they are on the rebound, they get it.

The only college educated humans on planet earth, that deny anthropogenic climate change, are Republicans. You don’t get it, your kids won’t pay the price, biodiversity on planet earth will.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/12/hottest-decade-climate-crisis-2019

The past decade was the hottest ever recorded globally, with 2019 either the second or third warmest year on record, as the climate crisis accelerated temperatures upwards worldwide, scientists have confirmed.

Every decade since 1980 has been warmer than the preceding decade, with the period between 2010 and 2019 the hottest yet since worldwide temperature records began in the 19th century. The increase in average global temperature is rapidly gathering pace, with the last decade up to 0.39C warmer than the long-term average, compared with a 0.07C average increase per decade stretching back to 1880.

The past six years, 2014 to 2019, have been the warmest since global records began, a period that has included enormous heatwaves in the US, Europe and India, freakishly hot temperatures in the Arctic, and deadly wildfires from Australia to California to Greece.

Last year was either the second hottest year ever recorded, according to Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the third hottest year, as recorded by the UK Met Office. Overall, the world has heated up by about 1C on average since the pre-industrial era.

“As this latest assessment comprehensively confirms, we have just witnessed the warmest decade on record,” said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University. “As other recent reports confirm, we must act dramatically over this next decade, bringing emissions down by a factor of two, if we are to limit warming below catastrophic levels of 1.5C that will commit us to ever-more dangerous climate change impacts.

“This is something every American should think about as they vote in the upcoming presidential election.”

The report, compiled by 520 scientists from more than 60 countries and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, outlines the myriad ways that rising temperatures are altering the planet and human life, including:

Michael Mann faked the numbers in his research. There are 100s if not 100s of emails of him discussing fudging the numbers to reach his determined conclusions.

He did not. Also, he is literally one of 10s of thousands of climate researchers.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

For every fact of science there are conspiracy theories to dispute them.

Yes - but some topics are too important to allow conspiracy theories to dictate policy.

I don't disagree with you there.

If you'd like to do your own research on this subject, and not just swallow the narative they've been force feeding you, start here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor...e/#7c79b9127ba6

I'd suggest using a search engine other than google. That way you won't have to dig through 12 or so pages.

I actually know a fair bit about this topic. Global warming is real.

After reading this board for a decade plus, Lyu knows his stuff. If we all sat down for a few beers, we would bury you under an avalanche of irrefutable information.

It wouldn’t be pretty.

Google ranks pages by relevance and does a good job of serving up research info. If you are going that deep to find data to back your position that says all I need to know.

You mean you'd regurgitate all the fables you've been fed, and never checked out for truth.

Google's algorithms find the sites they want you to see. Test it out yourself.

Look up "Michael Mann fakes research" on Google and another search engine. See how many pages Google buries it. Try it with another search engine, other than yahoo, aol, mozilla. Try duck duck go. Please note the difference in results, and how Google thinks you're stupid.

Google does show some sites more easily than others. That doesn't prove your point on whether or not man's impact on climate change is fake or not. Do you also believe in Qanon?

Good.

No. I don't. I mean I actually know a lot about this.

Never been on that site. I've only heard about it from the libs on this site.

I don't doubt that it is real. I don't doubt that possibly we are contributing.

I just don't think we can stop it. Glaciers covered much of Ohio down towards Kentucky. Those all melted back. Many people think the poles were lush landscapes at one time.

To me, it is a part of the earth's lifecycle. It changes. We go through periods of cold and periods of hot. We just haven't been able to measure it yet since it takes so long to take place.


We have been entering a hot phase for 10,000 years. What caused the Ice Age to end? My answer is the planet has been warming up, and that was long before we had air conditioners and hair spray. We were dragging our knuckles.


I am sure that in time ice will cover much of the ground again.



Think of the sun as a heart. It's what keeps everything alive on this planet. It expands and contracts, just as ours do. When it expands, it gets hotter. When it contracts it gets cooler. It's just not doing it 74 times a minute. It does it once every 10,000 years.

Seeing the estimates the sun will continue another 6 billion years, we are going to go through some cycles. Some cold, some hot. Mars might be the garden spot in a few thousand years as it might be too hot here.

The carbon dioxide levels over the last few decades are very different from anything we've ever seen. We are currently just North of 410 ppm. We can use Ice Core measurements from Antarctica to go back 800,000 years, and we've never seen a value above 300 ppm:

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg


And we can ask the question, can humans have produced 200 ppm of Carbon dioxide over the last 100 years?

Let's just look at the raw amount of power that has been produced by burning fuels. To date, that is about 136,000 TWh:

blob:https://ourworldindata.org/e32c9a4e-20d4-479d-b119-46346951f3bf

The amount of C02 for each fuel is slightly different, but you get very close to the right answer by using the value for coal:

C + O2 = CO2

which releases 33940 KJ/kg of Coal.

Technically, for Gasoline/Oil you want to use C8H18 + 12.5 O2 -> 8 C02 + 9 * H20, but this is not a huge difference.

1 Wh = 3600J, so 136000*10^12 Wh = 5 * 10^20 J, which corresponds to 1.5e13 kg of coal. The answer is actually a bit higher (around 5 * 10^13 kg of coal -- because power plants aren't super efficient at producing power from burning fuel). climate.gov puts it at 3.5e13 kg (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/cl...uman-activities)

C weights 12 AU (by definition), and C02 weighs ~44 AU, so 1.5e16 kg of coal is around 44/12 * 5e13 kg = 1.5 * 10^14 kg of C02 that humans have released into the atmosphere.

Almost there! Now we just need to calculate the change in the C02 concentration in the atmosphere, if we add 1.5*10^14 kg of C02 to it.

The total atmosphere weighs around 5 * 10^18 kg, we are adding 1.5 * 10^14 kg of C02, so you would expect a mass fraction of around 0.03% (if none of the Carbon ever cycled). C02 is ~3x heavier than N2, so you get an answer that is very nicely 100 ppm of C02.

It's not a perfect calculation (and there are a lot of sources and sinks to worry about) including the ability of oceans and permafrost to remove some of the carbon we emit.

However, you can see that the rise in C02 very closely echos what is coming out of our factories and cars.

Also, as a small note - the Sun's radius doesn't change very much over time. Also, when it gets smaller it get's hotter (Boltzman's law) -- this is why red giant stars are much cooler than main sequence stars.

The total solar power is relatively constant on ~million year timescales (and very constant, to within 0.1% over the last 100 years). That's mostly because the mean free path of an optical photon in the Sun's interior is very short. Even though it is moving at the speed of light, it takes photons about a million years to escape from the center of the Sun (where fusion takes place) to make it to the surface.

Stop stating facts!

Trumpfanz be like:

Numbers are, unfortunately, a sure-fire way to shut down conversation on topics like this.

But the point is:

1.) We know that Humans have released enough C02 to increase the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere by 100-300 ppm. We can literally count the number of bricks of coal, and gallons of gas that we have burned -- and we can literally weight the atmosphere.

2.) We know that C02 blocks the transmission of infrared radiation. We can literally shine an infrared laser through some air -- then increase the amount of C02 in the air - and then shine the laser through again, and we can record less and less light getting through.

Mythbusters has a good demonstration of this (melting sculptures of Jaime is not how i'd measure this in the lab -- but the physics behind this is easy to do):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

3.) We know that global temperatures are rising at unprecedented rates. We have millions of thermometers around this world -- so measuring temperatures for the last few hundred years is easy.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (Founded by a team of scientists/funders who were initially skeptical of global warming) is one of the more famous examples. An interesting statistical model to deal with tons of effects relating to the exact placement of thermometers, day/night variations, etc.

https://berkeleyearth.org/

4.) We can do somewhat more clever (though not really any trickier measurements) to go back thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of years to get measurements. A nice review by NASA is here:

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


There is a ton of evidence -- the argument for human-driven global warming is not particularly nuanced -- detailed, or hard to interpret. We've pushed a lot of C02 into the atmosphere, and C02 blocks the re-emission of infrared light, raising the temperature of the planet.

People can fully understand that if you keep throwing trash in your own back yard pretty soon what you own will be a dump. But somehow that logic escapes them when they think billowing smoke and trash into our air holds no consequences.

I said I know we are contributing.



Population has increased greatly. In 1800 there were under a billion people on the planet. Today estimates are 10-13 billion.

There are too many people on the planet. We are sucking the oil out of the ground. Burning large amounts of coal. It's not like 1800 where a family might burn 2-3 trees worth of wood a winter and the blacksmith might burn a hot fire with some coal to hammer out horseshoes, fire pokers, and forging some pots and pans.

The problem isn't what we are doing. It's the number of people demanding services.


I also get the ice core samples, but none the less, glaciers have been receding for a long time. Long before we had much impact on things.


That is truth and facts as well. Don't talk down to me.

So you don't think increased population is a big part of the problem?


Increased demand creates increased pressure.



Pretty simple concept IMO. Increased pressure on timber to build homes. Increased pressure to produce enough food to feed people. Increased pressure on gasoline production to power engines.


I don't have a problem with alternatives. I welcome that, but until we figure a way to make it competitive with what we are doing now, it just isn't going to work.

Electric cars are making some progress. Solar is still a ways off. Most people can't afford to install $40,000 worth of solar panels on the roof, let along a factory. Heating with gas and buying electricity from the power company is cheaper, and face it, people want cheaper.


Look at Wal Mart. People want to go there to buy the $12 shirt and not go to the department store to buy the $50 shirt.


People talk about it until it comes time to pay for it.

Sure - but to go back a step farther - it is not "people demanding services" - it is the amount of fossil fuels we burn.

Maybe in 1950 this was an inescapable problem - society needed power, and we didn't know how to make enough power without burning fuel.

But that is not the way things are anymore. We have solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels... etc. etc. It would take an actual commitment -- and actual money -- but there is a way to avoid f'ing up the planet worse than we already have.



Sure, but that was 4 degrees C over 10,000 years. We have warmed the planet about 1.5 degrees C over 100 years. The rates aren't even close to similar.

Also, like - the Earth was pretty different during the last ice age. Don't you think that if you converted to the middle of the Ice Age in the next 50 years, or so -- it would have a huge impact on society?

Here's some sites for you.

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
Co2 and temp over geologic time. It shows temp and co2 do not follow each other.

https://notrickszone.com/2010/10/04/4593/
Sunspot and temp comparison. This shows the sun controls our weather more than anything.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/sunspot
More on sunspots

I think it means something that I am citing NASA, and you are citing "notrickzone.com"

Anyway -- Sunspots run on a strong 11 year cycle, with some longer (relatively random and unpredictable) variations.

The two minima (Cycle 24 and Cycle 25) have actually been some of the deepest and longest minima over the past century -- an effect which (according to the wizards at "notrickzone.com" - would lead to a decrease in the global temperature. But instead, nearly all of the hottest years on record have come over the last two solar cycles.

Even in the plot that they show - the sunspot number has gone down over the last 30 years, while global temperatures have spiked.

A good database for this is: http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles

Here is a public article about this from the National Weather Service:

https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-sun-activity-in-solar-cycle

Your last website, is actual science - by the way, but it does not claim that the Marauder Minimum caused the "Little Ice Age". This was an active area of study for awhile in the early 2000's, but there is a 70 year offset between the Little Ice age and the Marauder Minimum (which actually came later).

See:

https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html

and a nice overview by NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

which also includes a much easier to read plot of solar irradience vs. global temperatures.

Just remember you’re talking to a guy who treats Breitbart as gospel, believes sharia “no-go” zones exist in the UK, and refuses to face the reality of the Dixiecrats and the southern strategy.

You’re not going to get far. He’ll probably source Ken Hamm within a post or two at this point.

Say anything you like. Some people realize exactly what you're saying. Which is why they want to invest in alternative energy.

Common sense dictates that when you are burning more fossil fuels the negative impact is far greater than it was in 1950.

Still others wish to cling to the old ways trashing our planet even further. Human beings are supposed to have a thinking brain which allows them to adapt giving changing situations.

While some think we should try to lessen our impact by using energy we can produce without trashing the planet, others cry about the poor coal industry and promote the old ways that helped get us to where we are now.

COAL! Beautiful freshly washed really clean coal! Trump brought back all those coal jobs for nothing... NO HE DIDN'T because even that imbecile knows coal is dead.

It's time to do something GOPers despise and move forward with something new.

Trump administration finalizes plan to open up Alaska wildlife refuge to drilling

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro...alaska-wildlife

Sometimes I wish I knew how to hack people.

I wouldn’t steal info, or money, or anything.

I would simply drop a giant ass middle finger to every trump supporter in the country, and let them know that the more time goes on, the more I despise them and their views.

Every time they logged on to their computer or unlocked their phone, a big ass middle finger is there to great them.

As for that 70 year offset, you really didn't expect immediate results from a minimum, did you?

We're entering what is supposed to be an elongated minimum, so we'll have our answers hopefully in our lifetimes.

Well - I certainly didn't expect the effect to come before the cause...

Marauder Minimum is 1645-1715.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Little Ice Age is Traditionally Dated 1550-1850
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

I used to say, if the atmosphere catches fire, we'd have to admit we are in the end times, armogeddan.

Early news report today, Calif: it's on fire, oh really still?
" First time in history, National Weather Service had to issue a fire tornado warning"
Whaaaat!

This is my favorite arguement ever. "Here is tons of scientific data and the math behind it, broken down in great detai."

"But here is a bunch of random websites that say otherwise."

Looking at data is fun -- so I just went and downloaded the raw data of the Global Temperature Anomaly and the Sunspot number, and plotted them against each other.

I used the Global Temperature Anomaly Data from Berkeley Earth:

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_complete.txt

And I used the Sunspot Number from SILSO, which is a worldwide authority on solar observations:

http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt

Conveniently, both of these databases start in 1750. Then I plotted them. The original data is a bit messy, since there are ~4000 datapoints:

[img]http://imgur.com/a/Q8TIiK0[/img]

So then I just smoothed everything by a Gaussian of 1 yr, to make the data more readable.

e.g. (for those that care):
smoothed_sunspots = scipy.ndimage.gaussian_filter1d(sunspots, 12)
smoothed_temp = scipy.ndimage.gaussian_filter1d(temp, 12)

[img]http://imgur.com/giCcAGd[/img]

Now, you can pretty clearly see the 11 year solar cycle in the sunspot data, in some years the solar maxima are more intense than others (especially in the 1940s) -- the minima all look about the same.

The rising global temperatures are also very apparent, especially over the last 50 years or so.

Now, you can go one step farther and try to eliminate the 11-year cycle. I just take the raw data and smear it out again by a 11~yr Gaussian (this doesn't totally eliminate things, since it is a rolling average, but it makes it invisible).

And now you get this:

[img]http://imgur.com/Rcwzte2[/img]

And now, you really see the lack of a correlation between Sunspot number and temperature. Sunspot numbers have been decreasing significantly for the last 60 years or so, and global temperatures have been spiking. There is also no correlation between the decrease in sunspot numbers between 1850 and 1900 and the rise in temperatures between 1850 and now.

There is one word of caution about this last figure -- a Gaussian kernel smoothing can produce artifacts near the endpoints of the dataset. Notably here, the spike in the global temperature levels out over the last few years of the data.

That is purely an artifact of the fact that you are choosing:

T(x) = sum_(x-T)^(x+T) T(x+t)*exp(-t/T) and there are no datapoints in the future, so the most recent data gets heavily biased (and smeared out, by older data).

More succinctly, if you smear by a 11 year Gaussian, data over the last 11 years or so is going to look weird.


Edit: Do imgur links not work here?

May I ask how old you are?