^took the words right outta ma mouth

Original post:
I could see it possibly being a problem, but it could also be a positive (water temperatures tend to vary less than air temperatures, etc). The marine proxies were calibrated to modern temperatures and other more established proxies so my hunch is that it would come out in the wash, maybe slightly higher or lower uncertainty because of it.


In this case, I would defer to climate scientists and they seemed to have generally accepted the findings so far.


Actually, the most interesting criticism I've seen is that they used too many proxies from the Northern Hemisphere, and they might be slightly overstating the peak temperatures at the ~7,000 year mark as being too warm. Could make for a much scarier graph




[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ta hell with editing tho, Ill just leave it]

3/13/2013 1:05:37 PM

Quote :

"I'm just saying there's a credibility gap that just cannot be ignored."

See, my credibility gap goes the other direction. Not one of these people can, or will, call out the blatant frauds that have been committed in the field. That suggests to me that shoddy work is allowed, as long as it goes with "the consensus."

Quote :

"Indeed. If your perspective doesn't include the last 160 years, there's practically no warming at all!"

Likewise, if you only consider the last 160 years, you are also missing the big picture as well. But let's not be bothered with that...

3/13/2013 9:12:54 PM

so, for you, all that it'd take to change your mind would be for scientists to start apologizing for the work/missteps of others?

what other fields do you hold to this standard?

medicine?

aviation?

teaching?

[Edited on March 14, 2013 at 12:59 AM. Reason : I'll hang up and listen]

3/14/2013 12:40:23 AM

Quote :

" Not one of these people can, or will, call out the blatant frauds that have been committed in the field. "

Ahaha, sorry, really can't take this seriously from morons like you and TKE who just regurgitate whatever stupid shit you find on the internet that confirms your belief with no signs whatsoever of critical thinking or analysis.

Reminder that TKE posted this garbage with seriousness:



YOU ARE HERE (160 years ago), also it's the scientists (whose data I'm misrepresenting) who are the frauds!

[Edited on March 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM. Reason : .]

3/14/2013 10:05:40 AM

It's seriously almost as though you guys are testing us by going through skepticalscience.com's list of arguments with your hand covering the refutations.

3/14/2013 10:11:21 AM

wow, i'm surprised that you didn't double post with both your user names and instead just used the one. There's nothing fraudulent or incorrect with what I posted. And the Greenland ice cores are the most accurate and trusted temperature proxy. Albeit it's only a regional record.

Go spout out your chicken little scare mongering elsewhere.

Sad fact is that people care about this less and less every day. And that means politicians care less as well.

[Edited on March 14, 2013 at 10:33 AM. Reason : k]

3/14/2013 10:32:39 AM

Quote :

"Sad fact is that people care about this less and less every day. And that means politicians care less as well."

A)What "people"?
B)What in the hell does that have to do with whether it's true?

3/14/2013 10:36:36 AM

and why is it sad if you think it is a conspiracy?

3/14/2013 10:37:59 AM

^^b/c all these measures that lower quality of life won't pass without public support, that's why.

3/14/2013 10:40:21 AM

support for climate change is about as high as it has ever been.

http://www.nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ni_pb_13-01_0.pdf

not surprising post sandy, the epic drought out west, etc that we had last year.

Obama mentioned climate change several times in his state of the union, and this is the guy that pretty much sways to wherever public opinion pushes him, I doubt he's that far off. (remains to be seen if he actually does anything)


its pretty questionable that any climate change legislation would lower quality of life. The fact is industry said the same things about the clean water act and the clean air act (basically all environmental laws actually) and both of these laws have measurably increased quality of life for the average american.

3/14/2013 12:04:23 PM

Quote :

"b/c all these measures that lower quality of life won't pass without public support, that's why."

This is a decent point to make, and probably the best approach that *certain* users in this thread could have taken.

Don't try to dispute the numbers, don't try to sound smart, and don't try to pretend it isn't happening.

If you want to *win* the global warming debate you're probably going to, not because you're right, but because people are assholes.

Not saying this is beneficial to anyone, but 68 pages? Come on. Those in opposition to these facts should just say "neener."

3/14/2013 12:17:19 PM

Not quite sure how creating a new industry, providing a renewable, clean, high tech energy source, and saving the planet could lower quality of life.

3/14/2013 12:52:07 PM

Being responsible for wasting resources and apathy = lower quality of life.

3/14/2013 3:45:02 PM

Quote :

" There's nothing fraudulent or incorrect with what I posted."

Yes there is, there's an arrow saying "You are here" which points to 1855 (the last year of GISP2 data). I somehow doubt this image was made in 1855, and serious warming hadn't even started by then. See for yourself in a larger reconstruction which includes the MWP as well as the actual present-day:

Quote :

"Go spout out your chicken little scare mongering elsewhere."

Hey, how about you shut the fuck up until you can actually post something that isn't blatant misinformation. You're on the wrong fucking side and it's incredible that after 5 years of being shut down over and over and over again on this very thread you haven't learned a goddamn thing and keep making the exact same stupid errors in judgement and critical thinking.

How many times does this process have to repeat before you start to wonder if maybe you should stop trusting these sources of yours? Please, before you ever post again, just go here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and see if it's already on there. If you can't refute what's on that website for whatever you're about to say, don't bother.

This is what people who think actually do, they don't just rush to post whatever shit they find thinking, "Oh, this'll really show those libruls!" We try to fact-check ourselves first, and anticipate the rebuttals ahead of time, so we don't embarrass ourselves the way you do. Well, the way you would do, if you actually had the capacity to understand how stupid you look when you do this.

[Edited on March 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

3/18/2013 10:10:00 AM

global warming is a hoax.

3/18/2013 11:58:41 AM

What a wonderfully thought-out and elaborate response!

If only you had put as much time into it as your explanation regarding the Steubenville Rape Hoax.

You're just on a roll today aren't you Smath? Wake up on the wrong side of the trailer?

3/18/2013 12:10:15 PM

Michael Mann speaking tonight up at App. I wonder is aaronburro's head will explode knowing that he's in our state. Unless burro's still in GA or somewhere like that.

3/21/2013 4:22:30 PM

atmospheric CO2 will hit 400 ppm any day now...

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

4/26/2013 3:36:44 PM

4/26/2013 3:50:41 PM

and yet life will go on just fine. remember when people were scared about it hitting 350?

nothing but another Y2k scare.

4/29/2013 2:41:38 PM

that's seems rational and logical.

remember when people were scared about pollution in our water? nothing ever came of that, everyone realized that we have plenty of water and the pollution just dilutes, and all our water is totally clean!

4/29/2013 2:51:09 PM

Yup, nothing at all. Just unprecedented floods, famines, hurricanes, and droughts all over the world. Just mass extinctions of amphibians, aquatic, and plant life. Just every single thing they warned us would happen 20 years ago, except faster and worse then their most pessimistic models could have predicted. Take the blinders off you fucking idiots.

4/29/2013 2:58:31 PM

yeah we're basically there.

399.72ppm

4/30/2013 9:06:22 AM

TKE the best way for you to help the global warming denialist movement would probably be to unattach your dumb ass from it.

4/30/2013 9:34:42 AM

Quote :

"remember when people were scared about pollution in our water? nothing ever came of that, everyone realized that we have plenty of water and the pollution just dilutes, and all our water is totally clean!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2M_Z0f6ecE

4/30/2013 9:36:04 AM

^ LOL

4/30/2013 9:50:59 AM

wait, what's the current argument? That CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or that combustion reactions don't release CO2?

Or is it just "carbon dioxide isn't a a thing like plastic, I can't see it so I shouldn't worry about it"

4/30/2013 10:13:31 AM

^who are you referring to?

Quote :

"Just unprecedented floods, famines, hurricanes, and droughts all over the world."

I'm curious to see your proof of this? Because there is none, and no respectable scientist or scientific organization has made any such ridiculous claims.

[Edited on April 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM. Reason : k]

4/30/2013 11:28:15 AM

Eh I would say "unprecedented" was a fair word to use, and certainly the disasters listed are occurring more frequently and strongly it seems.

All over the world though? No.

That very thought is the single biggest stumbling block to any meaningful Global Warming dialogue.

So many noble causes (gun control) get torpedoed by both sides dealing in absolutes.

4/30/2013 12:28:04 PM

It's not a stumbling block unless you think the world's surface and atmsphere are completely uniform, with uniform properties, and thus would change in uniform ways in response to changing energy content.


[Edited on April 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/30/2013 12:36:38 PM

Quote :

"wait, what's the current argument? That CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or that combustion reactions don't release CO2?"

It's the sun. Also, it's a hoax.

4/30/2013 12:43:03 PM

Of course I dont think that, but what is the most standard recourse that anti-climate change retards always take?



"Well why was it so cold the other day?"

"The precipitation levels here havent changed in 20 years."

"After Katrina we didnt have hardly any hurricanes for a few years."

"Its beautiful outside, always has been, always will be."

"The places that complain about this have always sucked."

"Some places are growing their own food for once, its a good thing."



By focusing only on the negatives and seemingly ignoring any positives "the retarded: assume youre hiding something. Usually this is no problem, you just steamroll them, but unfortunately they are numerous and oftentimes in positions of power.

Much like with gun control this was attacked in completely the wrong way.

4/30/2013 12:45:42 PM

It doesn't matter how you argue, a denialist will latch onto any evidence that bolsters their argument no matter how contrived it is.

Nothing short of Jesus descending from heaven and giving them a science lesson is going to convince them. Its time to just leave these people behind and focus on those that know climate change is a problem, but likely don't consider it a priority for action or voting. They are the ones that can be convinced to take action.

4/30/2013 1:12:14 PM

Thats why you give them less evidence, dont ignore their "concerns", dont give off the impression theyre stupid, and dont try to give them a science lesson.

These are all common (liberal) mistakes to make when addressing the general public. I still wholeheartedly agree with you, but ive worked with the public too much, largely in a planning capacity, to accept this "the way things SHOULD work" nonsense.

Youre right about the ones that can be convinced to take action, but im afraid there might not be as many of them as you think. There is also this pesky thing called voting that might make that an issue.

You would be absolutely fucking floored at some of the stuff voters say in town/city council meetings, in front of county commissioners, etc. If you think this messageboard is a sorry sample of the electorate you should see the lack of shame shown by many older voters.

Thank God many of them are unaware of the internet. Well, except for the ones that use "the googles" to produce "evidence" why certain local projects shouldnt happen. Fucking Christ, I dont know if there are any other planners active on this board, but stories like that would make an entertaining thread for sure.

4/30/2013 1:41:57 PM

stop trying to relate this to gun control and trying to make it a party issue

4/30/2013 1:45:02 PM

Im not, TEG is.

Im telling you you're not going to win this argument (obviously) by beating people like him over the head with it.

If that was the case we would already be living in Al Gore's Utopia.

4/30/2013 1:54:46 PM

Quote :

"It's the sun. Also, it's a hoax."

I don't know why but that made me LOL for real. so true.

[Edited on April 30, 2013 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/30/2013 2:08:18 PM

y0willy0 maybe you should focus your energies on TKE a bit. I'm not really buying this "yes yes this guy is wrong but you silly libs are totally failing to change his mind because X,Y,Z" shtick.

You know why we can never change TKE's mind? Because "we" are "liberals" and being a conservative today means never admitting a liberal is right about something. People like you, folks on the right who actually know better, ought to police your own a bit.

4/30/2013 2:28:17 PM

Okay.

"Hey TEG, since you're a bible-thumper and all you remember that bit where God told you to be a shepherd of the Earth? Well you're not doing a very good job of it so here is my suggestion. Let's kill two three birds with one stone here and:

a) make Jesus happy by being a good shepherd of the Earth, and

b) make Liberals angry because you did it for Jesus and not for them.

c) Also remember Obama is actually an evil corporatist pretending to be a liberal so by continuing on your current schtick you're actually supporting your sworn enemy "dear leader," so stop it you Obama-swilling swine.

4/30/2013 2:41:20 PM

TKE-Teg is a bible thumper?

4/30/2013 3:03:09 PM

Ok, You've piqued my interest, how would you lay out an argument for someone that isn't necessarily a denialist but obviously skeptical? How would you massage their concerns?


Personally, I think the vast majority of people have made up their minds. For evidence, just look at the partisan divide in polls on climate change. Climate change (and related topics like renewable energy, carbon legislation, probably even "sustainable" planning) are now a mainstay of the culture wars. Once a subject makes it into that realm, it's extremely hard to get an opponent to admit that their argument is crap (confirmation bias, blah blah, etc etc).

4/30/2013 3:15:30 PM

I'm not a bible-thumper. I'd say at this point in my life I'm pretty indifferent to God.

Quote :

"Just unprecedented floods, famines, hurricanes, and droughts all over the world."

There have been no unprecedented disasters such as listed above. However the media would have you think otherwise. Not because it's necessarily their agenda, rather we:
- have gotten better at covering weather events
-the human population continues to grow and we develop more land for communities, increasing the chances of a weather disaster hitting some settlement
-international coverage of events is much better than before, so it's no surprise to hear about weather events more often.

As to hurricanes the US is currently in a historically quiet hurricane cycle. Never in the recorded history of Atlantic storms have we had this little activity. It has been over 7 1/2 years since a Category 3 or higher storm has hit the United States coastline. Irene & Sandy were both Category One storms and both of their impacts were "helped" by full moon high tides. That's a matter of bad timing and nothing else.

[Edited on April 30, 2013 at 4:27 PM. Reason : no scare mongering here]

4/30/2013 4:16:48 PM

I mean, maybe NASA is part of the "media" conspiracy:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

With and without the Tropical Cyclone Indicator it appears to be sharply increasing in recent years.

4/30/2013 4:42:56 PM

I think Hurricane Sandy was pretty unprecedented and I'm pretty sure we're near record highs for the number of named storms that have occurred over the past several years.

4/30/2013 6:37:28 PM

One explanation for that might be:

"Because we're simply naming more storms / types of storms?"

Which by the way was unilaterally pursued by The Weather Channel and widely panned as complete bullshit by most meteorologists.

Also:

Quote :

"how would you lay out an argument for someone that isn't necessarily a denialist but obviously skeptical? How would you massage their concerns?"

I wouldnt, and the rest of your post explains why; this is one of several reasons I no longer work in local government. We are looking at 68 pages now of absolutely nothing.

4/30/2013 8:21:33 PM

To some, it's simply easier to deny the existence of a problem. That way they don't have to be responsible for their actions.

4/30/2013 8:51:39 PM

Quote :

""Just unprecedented floods, famines, hurricanes, and droughts all over the world." I'm curious to see your proof of this? Because there is none, and no respectable scientist or scientific organization has made any such ridiculous claims."

You don't have any problem with the Earth getting hotter? Forget about the precipitation changes. Is increase in temperature not a problem?

5/1/2013 8:43:44 AM

Nah it's not like temperature would interfere with our food supply or anything important.

5/2/2013 9:39:13 AM

bump

5/20/2013 5:22:33 PM

Quote :

"I think Hurricane Sandy was pretty unprecedented and I'm pretty sure we're near record highs for the number of named storms that have occurred over the past several years."

Most of those storms never make landfall, thus 50-60 years ago we wouldn't have even been aware of them, or given them names.



This graph shows that we're in a historically quiet hurricane period. Even Nature has stated there is no currently available proof to reliably link extreme weather and man made climate change.

http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428

5/21/2013 9:10:31 AM