FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yep, definitely a distinct signature in the climate record.

You are showing one single bit of data in an area that is so complex that meteorologists run programs for weeks on a Cray to develop new models and algorithms. Here's another, single data graph.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by skipmac

You are showing one single bit of data in an area that is so complex that meteorologists run programs for weeks on a Cray to develop new models and algorithms. Here's another, single data graph.

here's another chart on co2 from ice cores. Unadjusted.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

So if everyone in the US, and that includes individuals in charge of energy consuming companies, changed their habits to be more eco friendly, why would we need to change or make new policies? The root is the individual not the policy.

Unfortunately the "individual" is not one but a large group that generally follows the path of least resistance and that means resistance to change.

It wasn't "the individual" that changed segregation in the US it was a dedicated leader and actions of the courts that forced the change. I think it will take the same to force a change on energy consumption unless we wait until fossil fuels are so scarce and so expensive that the change is forced upon us and that will not come until the environment is in a very bad way.

[SailRedemption]

I have a question, was there REALLY accurately reading instruments from before the early 1900s? Im not a science instrument historian, but at times I find it hard to believe that we have accurate data before the first world war. But I could be wrong here.

[skipmac]

For anyone that has an open mind and is willing to read and understand the science from valid, confirmed, repeatable research from reputable sources the information and answer is clear. As I previously noted the overwhelming majority of real scientists all agree on human influence on climate change.

Trying to argue point by point is a waste of time that I don't have and has as much chance of success as trying to convince a fundamentalist that the theory of evolution is real and the earth is more than 6000 years old.

For these reasons I will ignore and not respond to any further nit picking arguments.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by skipmac

You are showing one single bit of data in an area that is so complex that meteorologists run programs for weeks on a Cray to develop new models and algorithms. Here's another, single data graph.

Yes, that discredits EPA historical data derived from beloved peer review sources. Because models override historical data any day of the week.



Perhaps these meteorologists guys should stop playing with their models and look outside once in a while.

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by skipmac

For these reasons I will ignore and not respond to any further nit picking arguments.

Good for you.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by skipmac

For anyone that has an open mind and is willing to read and understand the science from valid, confirmed, repeatable research from reputable sources the information and answer is clear. As I previously noted the overwhelming majority of real scientists all agree on human influence on climate change.

Trying to argue point by point is a waste of time that I don't have and has as much chance of success as trying to convince a fundamentalist that the theory of evolution is real and the earth is more than 6000 years old.

For these reasons I will ignore and not respond to any further nit picking arguments.

^^ Short version: I'll concede defeat while I still have my dignity.

[Dr. D]

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

The fact that oil company execs get rich by selling oil was never in question. That's the point of selling oil after all. But to pretend that money cannot motivate someone being paid by the government or university is absurd.

By rightfully pointing out that actual scientists don't get paid much, are you then saying that people who don't make much money can't be bought? The fact is that almost anyone can be bought, and those people who make the least are cheaper to buy. It's especially easy to use money to bias someone's research if they also think they're doing the "right" thing for their "worthy" cause.

So we have established you know nothing about science. Which scientists really make it big? The ones that show at that time current accepted science is wrong. The first scientist that proves climate change is not man made is a way that must be accepted will be heralded. Except that won’t happen as MMCC is true.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

I have a question, was there REALLY accurately reading instruments from before the early 1900s? Im not a science instrument historian, but at times I find it hard to believe that we have accurate data before the first world war. But I could be wrong here.

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0l3tymEagc&t=94s

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

I have a question, was there REALLY accurately reading instruments from before the early 1900s? Im not a science instrument historian, but at times I find it hard to believe that we have accurate data before the first world war. But I could be wrong here.

yes they had accurate reading instruments to track things like temperate and co2 concentrations. There are lots of very accurate resources for various readings from before 1800.
If you are referring to the chart I posted that is derived from ice cores.

[Dr. D]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

I have a question, was there REALLY accurately reading instruments from before the early 1900s? Im not a science instrument historian, but at times I find it hard to believe that we have accurate data before the first world war. But I could be wrong here.

Yes, you are wrong.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes, that discredits EPA historical data derived from beloved peer review sources. Because models override historical data any day of the week.



Perhaps these meteorologists guys should stop playing with their models and look outside once in a while.

Said I wouldn't but one more time. Five minutes on google produced this and a few dozen more. Historical data from ice core samples over time show the increase in CO2 directly in line with the industrialization of the planet.


Ice core analysis has indicated that levels of carbon dioxide have risen and fallen over the past 400,000 years. Today CO2 levels are rising 2 parts per million (ppm) per year, more than 100 ppm above pre-industrial levels.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dr. D

Yes, you are wrong.

Accurate data from pre industrial times is indeed possible using a number of techniques, like sampling air trapped in bubbles frozen in ancient glaciers or carbon dating to determine time frames, tree coring to get data on prehistoric climate like rainfall, soil cores to show dozens of things like prehistoric asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions and much more.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Said I wouldn't but one more time. Five minutes on google produced this and a few dozen more. Historical data from ice core samples over time show the increase in CO2 directly in line with the industrialization of the planet.


Ice core analysis has indicated that levels of carbon dioxide have risen and fallen over the past 400,000 years. Today CO2 levels are rising 2 parts per million (ppm) per year, more than 100 ppm above pre-industrial levels.

well ice cores are not as reliable as some would want us to believe
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...76x4y6o0W51Yv4