Global warming deniers, can you also deny ocean acidification?

ironic123 wrote:

Temperature is the constant, you can use the tree ring data from the last century to better calibrate temperature. If you compare tree ring to tree ring you get the same thing but it's "easier" to use thermometers in large part because it's quicker (i.e. you don't have to drill every time you want to make a measurement).

I can't believe I have to explain something so obvious. Once you figure out how the two are related, it's apples to apples.

Did you look at the graph in the video? Only the last century's worth of thermometer readings is high. The natural indicators are much lower and don't look alarming at all. So couldn't it simply be that many thermometers are installed too close to urban heat centers? (after all, someone has to maintain them and check them. You need people to do this. A thermometer in the middle of the ocean somewhere isn't as practical as a thermometer at an airport, which prominently features a crapload of paved surfaces and usually, a city)

Yes, this is all taken into account in the calculations (heat island effect).

Yes. I deny ocean acidification. I had nothing to do with it. Honest ... I ran out of gas. I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my care. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!!

I respond by saying You have Ass-Head-ification.

This tripe is all bunk. That is as scientific as it needs to get

It is caused by too many people peeing in the ocean.

How many people here even realize that the earth is currently in an ice age? But yeah, all this global warming is man made (rolls eyes). Guarantee you we see another glacial period before this current ice age ends.

Near Zero Inflation wrote:

Yes, this is all taken into account in the calculations (heat island effect).

It is taken into account? I read that the climatologists that advise the IPCC (East Anglia University) have been selectively removing certain base stations they felt were wrong (ie, provided low temperatures). When you have human beings making arbitrary calls, or even worse, when you have human beings who have economic incentives to show warming trends, then you don't have scientific method anymore. You have propaganda.

Iam amazed at the total lack of intelligence on this site. First the quackery about other athletes and coaches by those that have no idea and now this bunch of hooey by the those that wish to deny the evident. Doing a little homework may actually cause you to wake up from the world you are living in. Global warming, global dimming, ocean acidification are all complex systems to understand, but to deny their existence and man's involvement -- which just so happens to coincide with the start of the industrial age-- what a freaking coincidence that is eh -- is just ignorant! Let me see go drink from each of the rivers in America. Man had no influence on their horrible pollution and its effect on our oceans - matter of fact they aren't really polluted. Obviously the science is wacko. Man cannot influence anything thru his intervention in natural systems! Have you ever seen a damn! Get your head out of the sand! We really screw things up and global warming has been influenced by man!

Love the honesty of the one poster who frankly said: I'll be dead so I don't give a damn"

Irony123 is on target and funny as hell! You are one bright person and have the ability to think. Hope you are American!

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/special_sections.shtml?collectionCode=DIMBRIGHT1&journalCode=JD#id2009JD012841

[/quote] Did you look at the graph in the video? Only the last century's worth of thermometer readings is high. The natural indicators are much lower and don't look alarming at all. So couldn't it simply be that many thermometers are installed too close to urban heat centers? (after all, someone has to maintain them and check them. You need people to do this. A thermometer in the middle of the ocean somewhere isn't as practical as a thermometer at an airport, which prominently features a crapload of paved surfaces and usually, a city)[/quote]

You say that like someone who has dedicated their entire life to the problem wouldn't think to take the urban heat island effect into account.

Someone should email Ryan Hall and let him know that running in dress shoes is different than running in flats. Maybe that's why his last race wasn't so great?

It's not even that it's "science," it's just common sense. There are factors that complicate who will win a race (talent, luck, workouts) and few people would say that you can't argue on the margins (e.g. how long should a tempo run be).

You're ignoring 1,000's of data points 99.9% of which point to the same conclusion. You're basically saying that Geb would be just as successful if he showed up for a race and relied on luck and talent but didn't do any training.

The graphs showing increasing temperature are compilations of tree rings, corals, sediments, ice cores, the fossil record, temperature readings, models, Co2 studies, etc. All peer reviewed, done by 1,000's of scientists all over the world, and all pointing to the same conclusion.

You can go try to cherry-pick outliers or suggest crazy alternatives and you might, I will admit, have some success. But that's not how science works and it's no way to plan for anything else in life.

ironic123 wrote:

You say that like someone who has dedicated their entire life to the problem wouldn't think to take the urban heat island effect into account.

If you can, then explain to me how they have taken the urban heat island effect into account? Have they subtracted a pre-determined fixed value (like 1.778 degrees Celsius) from each of the temperature readings that happen to be near urban heat islands? If so, then how did they come up with that value? I understand that this is what the peer review process is for - to challenge like this. But what if the peer group is tainted by the same unscientific incentives as the researcher? After all, if climate scientists don't show that warming is occurring, then they don't serve a purpose (politically speaking). And that will negatively impact their funding. I think the whole community has been politicized and that's why I'm skeptical of their reports. I think you can understand this sort of skepticism.

Oh damn I just posted under the wrong name. That was me (previous post)

Re Heat Island: Compare an developed area and an undeveloped area. It's not that hard to establish a baseline where city center, suburbia, and undeveloped areas areas are all in relative proximity.

Re Peer Review: To come to a different conclusion on climate change requires more than a slight bias, 1,000's of scientists all over the world would literally have to be lying. This isn't a close call, or based on a few poorly controlled studies.

More importantly if you think (without evidence) that all of these scientists are part of a conspiracy, or that the peer review process doesn't work, where does that leave you? It leaves you with lead pipes, asbestos insullation and no link between smoking and cancer.

All right. Let's say I yielded on whether the earth is warming, and I also yielded over why it is warming. So I defer to you and the majority of climate scientists that the earth is warming and it's because of man's CO2 emissions. Then let's move forward. How much do we know about what the addition of more C02 will do to temperatures? Do we have any historical examples of times that CO2 was higher than it is today? And do we know the outcome of those high-CO2 periods?

Warmer, different plants and animals, differences in habitable land, etc. The climate corrects over geological time, emitted CO2 will be dissolved in the ocean, stored in the rocks, etc. There is, however, a non-miniscule chance that we will push the natural system so far out of whack that the earth will become basically uninhabitable for a very long time.

I think we might agree insofar as it isn't clear that:

1) We can stop anthropogenic climate change even if we want, either because of the economics or because it's already to late.

2) The cost of capping emissions is worth the benefit. A warmer world with more drought, stronger storms, and decreased biodiversity (in my opinion probably the worst) might be more palatable than the economic costs of cutting CO2 emissions now.

My guess is that the long term costs of doing nothing are greater than the costs of capping emissions but given the difficulty of collective action any meaningful solution is almost impossible.

There are at least two reasons why I don't like it when the science is attacked.

First, it lets people off the hook, it lets them pretend that there are no costs associated with inaction.

Second, to attack the science you are often forced to undermine a rational approach to problem solving (e.g. "it's just a theory") and that's rarely a good thing.

In a perfect world everyone would be aware of the substantial costs of action, and inaction, and make policy decisions decision based on that. I really don't think an ignorant or misinformed public should be our ideal.

ironic123 wrote:

There is, however, a non-miniscule chance that we will push the natural system so far out of whack that the earth will become basically uninhabitable for a very long time.

Let's talk about this non-miniscule chance, since this is what we should fear the most. How do you know there is a chance of this, let alone non-miniscule? I was asking for historical examples in my previous post. Do we have any historical context to evaluate possible future outcomes? Like I was asking, has CO2 ever been higher than it is now? If so, how much higher? When? What happened to life and climate as a result of that high CO2? Making policy decisions on hypotheticals is unwise (look at the Iraq war), so we should try to discuss within the framework of concrete facts.

Co2 levels have been much higher than they are now. At one point earth had Co2 levels similar to Venus and was only capable of supporting single-celled organisms.

More recent history (they have been higher)? I'm not going to pull papers for you but there is a ton of information on Co2 levels climate change, and the effects e.g. changes in sea level, changes in what kinds of plant and animal life can survive, etc.

How do we know there is a chance of catastrophic change? Science. 1) Evidence of past catastrophes in response to natural cycles strongly suggests that an anthropogenically forced change could have a similar impact 2) Climate modeles indicate the same risk.

It depends on your definition of a catastrophy, but come on. All policy decisions are made on hypotheticals, all science is based on hypothesis.

ironic123 wrote:

Co2 levels have been much higher than they are now. At one point earth had Co2 levels similar to Venus and was only capable of supporting single-celled organisms.

So earth was only capable of supporting single-celled organisms because it's CO2 levels were as high as Venus? That was the reason?

Actually, the historical record shows that during times of warm average temps and high CO2 levels, plant and animal life thrived like they never had before. Take a look at the Cambrian period. High temperatures, extremely high C02 (7000ppm at one point, compared to today's paltry 388ppm), and guess what happened? "The Cambrian Explosion" - a period during which most major Phyla appeared and was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms. Yes, an increase in biodiversity.