First off, in hundreds of pages, this is the first major error that's been found. That's not a bad record, and considering the political will to find errors, and the amount of scrutiny the IPCC reports receive, that's pretty good.
Second, we can judge the strength of the rest of the IPCC's work by examining how they responded to a legitimate error: they accepted it, and corrected it. We now have evidence that they are willing to make changes that improve the quality of their work. Any work the size and complexity of the IPCC report is going to have errors. The real question is how they're dealt with when they're found.
... and few people born before 1990 want to play D&D either! (Perhaps 10% based on the numbers in the article).
If you think that pen-and-paper RPG's are dead, you're sorely out of touch. WoTC has literally lead a resurgence in popularity of D&D w/ their new products, and today's 20yos play as much as they ever did. Want evidence? Go to your local university and look up their gaming club. It'll be packed full of nerddom. Go to your local game store's RPG night and look at the crowd... you'll see 40yos and 10yos playing in the same game, having fun.
I know being an old curmudgeon is fun, but you're just plain wrong that there has been some sort of shift in people's imaginations.
In the 1970's the then current and accepted theory by the high priests was that pollution (i.e industrial waste gases) was going to freeze the Earth. Now it is going to burn it.
For someone who claims to be skeptical and demanding of evidence before accepting something as true... why does that go away when you start making claims? You make a mockery of yourself when you claim that there was a accepted theory in the 70's about global freezing. There was no such thing.
There were some articles in Newsweek and similar magazines that made that sort of claim... but they didn't reference any conclusive peer reviewed work.
In short, you're more then happy to make claims without a shred of evidence. Instead of expecting us to show you the data and experiments, if you want to get to the bottom of it... you need to go read, learn, and understand what's already out there. Scientists have done the work; the onus is on you to understand it before you dismiss it.
Tryptophan inducing the Thanksgiving sleep is a nice myth--- but it's a common amino acid, and is actually in a higher concentration in chicken than turkey.
The sleep inducing factor in your favorite November holiday is actually the fact that you stuff yourself. Eat four pounds of chicken and gravy, and then we'll see if you stay awake.:)
You're making a very common error in understanding about what constitutes a scientific fact.
Evolution -is- a fact; evolution has been observed and tested and met the criteria of a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The number of scientific papers where evolution as fact has been observed number in the hundred thousand or millions.
This is, however, one more piece of evidence to support evolution and one more bit of knowledge that we can use to understand where we came from.
There is no scientifically tenable theory for human origins except for evolution from a common ancestor. It's been that was for about a hundred years. Get over it.
Fact's aren't facts when you're dealing with creationists. They actively avoid facts --- like evolution --- that disagree with their preconceived notions about how the world works.
The tides warp the planet's orbit by transferring kinetic energy into heat energy. The same thing is happening with the Earth/moon system- imagine how much energy exists in waves on your favorite beach. That energy is siphoned off of the moon's momentum!
In addition to your question, you also made statements of fact regarding what you believe. Your question only makes sense in light of that belief. You weren't arguing; you skipped that step and went straight to preaching. It's pretty clear that a lot of other people feel that was worth commenting on. I mean, if you've had to say it four times, maybe you should reexamine how people are interpreting your communications.
I'd like to apologize for upsetting you. That wasn't my intention. I hope you take a moment to read and think about what I have to say.
So I'm not an expert and that makes me 'ignorant'?
Simply put, yes. There are people who are not experts but are knowledgeable, but your statements pretty clearly precluded that.
What kind of fucking argument is that? I'm not an expert in chess, does that mean I'm ignorant in that too?
Yes. I am also ignorant of most things in the chess world.
I guess with that logic anyone without alphabet soup after their name is pretty goddamn stupid huh. How exactly does 'not an expert' translate to 'self-admittedly ignorant'? Well... I'll wait... Nothing? Didn't think so.
The problem here is this: While everyone is ignorant about almost everything, you seem to take that personally. Let me be very clear: I'm ignorant about almost everything. You are as well. That is not a personal attack, it's a fact. Thinking that you're not, and making claims contrary to people that do know more then you does in fact make you quite arrogant. You admitted to not being an expert as well as making unsupported claims that disagree with known theory and models. You clearly don't understand the basis of these models, the science, etc. You are ignorant on this matter.
The fact of the matter... arguments on BOTH sides are flawed. Neither side tends to take into account astronomical events - the sun spot cycle, 'near' supernovae, passing astronomical objects, etc.
Not true. You are clearly ignorant of the work done by climate scientists that addresses these exact things. That is not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. Your claiming to have this knowledge/expertise is, however, arrogant.
....that mini ice age we had ~500 years ago and its causes for one.
Climate scientists models not only account for it, but their models actually will predict it.
To sum up: being ignorant isn't a bad thing. We don't have enough time in our lives to fix even a tiny fraction of what is learnable. That is okay. However, one of the most difficult things to do is admitting when we don't know enough to have an informed opinion --- and people who are most ignorant often make the most confident statements.
.... do show a correlation between increased global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
However, it seems that the carbon dioxide levels increase about 40 to 50 years *after* the temperature increase
This statement is inaccurate and proves your ignorance. Ignorance + arrogance = a great way to make mistakes.
I am not accusing you of ignorance as an attempt at an ad hominem. I am hoping, however, that you actually do some research and learn something before you make statements that are so dumb.
Explaining away this problem is trivial. Atmospheric CO2 and global temperature both control each other. If something changes temperature, then CO2 also changes. If something changes CO2, then temperature also responds. And the best part is, scientists have already worked out how this system works! You don't even have to do the hard work--- just read and understand the knowledge that already exists.
Except they could. Our civilization is a few hundred years old, built of on the ruins of the Greek's and Roman's. You don't think a war could wreck it?
Also, the vast majority of species that have lived on Earth are now extinct. Extinction happens--- and massive death, war and starvation bring us closer to it. It could easily lead there.
Except, obviously you can. Go look at fick's law. You remember algebra, right? Given all the variables except one for a formula, you solve for the last one....
Given that we're talking about using calculus instead, but it's not some kind of insurmountable problem. Especially given that we don't need an exact set of data here, since we have other independent records that like I said, we can calibrate against, such as Ca/Mg data in forams, paleobotany data, Oxygen istopes...
If you think that large scale death, war and starvation are great for human civilization, that's cool bro! But that makes you a twisted fuck, and I hope you don't live in my neighborhood.
I happen to think that such things are bad, so well, we'll just disagree.
Personally, I expect humans to extinct pretty quickly on a geologic time scale, so maybe it's probably moot. But not bullshit.
Laws describing diffusion have been available since 1855. I'm happy to come on slashdot and add some facts to discussion, but you're not even willing to do the most basic research on your own. Diffusion isn't Shiva. It's not the destroyer of worlds. It's doesn't leave a flat burning husk in it's wake.
It's more like a hippy, saying, heeey, everything's okay. It changes concentrations in a predictable and understandable matter. I mean, the article you linked to even said as much.
I meant exactly as I said. Your criticisms are very, very, weak.
In fact, if anyone has a good/compete answer, I'm sure it's publishable; but I don't know of any work that has addressed it. That said, I'm not an expert; let's hope one shows up and answers.
That said, short term fluctuations in climate are readily recordable in some kinds of data. Approximately 120k years ago, the an interglacial period resulted in ocean levels 6m higher then those today. The results of this included the building of barrier reefs on what now is dry land; these reefs are found world-wide, from the Caribbean to Australia. This is the MIS 5e, for Marine Isotope Substage 5E. Based on isotope data, workers designated stages; later, paleontologists found the hard evidence of such on dry land.
We can detect sea level change at a ~1000 year scale in this period. One of the first things Christopher Columbus encounter when visiting the new world were these coral reefs, strangely standing vanguard from above the ocean....
So yeah, looking merely at sea levels we should be able to reconstruct climate 100kya from that alone, since ocean level and global climate are inextricably linked. But, we're not even touching on the more powerful methods of climate reconstruction that are employed...
I've talked about MIS 5e because that's something that I am personally familiar with. The evidence is pretty irrefutable; sea levels were higher in the past, and changed rapidly. But this is just something I know a bit about; I wouldn't expect someone with more data to randomly show up and crunch your question... even though I'm sure they're out there.
It would be effort well-spent regardless of the origin of the warming.
Being a skeptic doesn't make you a denialist.
Suggesting you know more then people who've spent their life working on the problem, and that there is a VAST CONSPIRACY, in spite of lack of knowledge--- is what makes a denialist. As well as a propensity to uncritically agree with anyone who's against the MAN.
I agree, though--- we should question what we should do. Anthropogenic or not, a warming Earth could cause massive problems to civilization. We need to find a good (or even best?) solution to the problem. And not just wait for events to overrun us...
Except there are other ways to proxy atmospheric CO2 that we can use to calibrate that data.
So yeah, we can tell. 380ppm isn't unsually high on a geologic scale; in the Paleozoic, levels were as much as 10x higher. Of course, for the Holocene, 380ppm is pretty darn high. Unprecedentedly high.
Slashdot Mirror
Still though, this is a vindication for science.
First off, in hundreds of pages, this is the first major error that's been found. That's not a bad record, and considering the political will to find errors, and the amount of scrutiny the IPCC reports receive, that's pretty good.
Second, we can judge the strength of the rest of the IPCC's work by examining how they responded to a legitimate error: they accepted it, and corrected it. We now have evidence that they are willing to make changes that improve the quality of their work. Any work the size and complexity of the IPCC report is going to have errors. The real question is how they're dealt with when they're found.
... and few people born before 1990 want to play D&D either! (Perhaps 10% based on the numbers in the article).
If you think that pen-and-paper RPG's are dead, you're sorely out of touch. WoTC has literally lead a resurgence in popularity of D&D w/ their new products, and today's 20yos play as much as they ever did. Want evidence? Go to your local university and look up their gaming club. It'll be packed full of nerddom. Go to your local game store's RPG night and look at the crowd... you'll see 40yos and 10yos playing in the same game, having fun.
I know being an old curmudgeon is fun, but you're just plain wrong that there has been some sort of shift in people's imaginations.
In the 1970's the then current and accepted theory by the high priests was that pollution (i.e industrial waste gases) was going to freeze the Earth. Now it is going to burn it.
For someone who claims to be skeptical and demanding of evidence before accepting something as true... why does that go away when you start making claims? You make a mockery of yourself when you claim that there was a accepted theory in the 70's about global freezing. There was no such thing.
There were some articles in Newsweek and similar magazines that made that sort of claim... but they didn't reference any conclusive peer reviewed work.
In short, you're more then happy to make claims without a shred of evidence. Instead of expecting us to show you the data and experiments, if you want to get to the bottom of it... you need to go read, learn, and understand what's already out there. Scientists have done the work; the onus is on you to understand it before you dismiss it.
anecdotes =/= science
Tryptophan inducing the Thanksgiving sleep is a nice myth--- but it's a common amino acid, and is actually in a higher concentration in chicken than turkey.
:)
The sleep inducing factor in your favorite November holiday is actually the fact that you stuff yourself. Eat four pounds of chicken and gravy, and then we'll see if you stay awake.
You're making a very common error in understanding about what constitutes a scientific fact.
Evolution -is- a fact; evolution has been observed and tested and met the criteria of a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The number of scientific papers where evolution as fact has been observed number in the hundred thousand or millions.
This extraordinary body of evidence consists of numerous tests of evolution, and easily fulfills any common definition of fact.
Evolution is also a theory, in the scientific sense-- which means that it is a broadly applicable set of principles that help explain nature.
Much has been written regarding this; a little use of the 'ol google will provide much more to show you wrong.
No one said what you think they said.
This is, however, one more piece of evidence to support evolution and one more bit of knowledge that we can use to understand where we came from.
There is no scientifically tenable theory for human origins except for evolution from a common ancestor. It's been that was for about a hundred years. Get over it.
Fact's aren't facts when you're dealing with creationists. They actively avoid facts --- like evolution --- that disagree with their preconceived notions about how the world works.
The tides warp the planet's orbit by transferring kinetic energy into heat energy. The same thing is happening with the Earth/moon system- imagine how much energy exists in waves on your favorite beach. That energy is siphoned off of the moon's momentum!
In addition to your question, you also made statements of fact regarding what you believe. Your question only makes sense in light of that belief. You weren't arguing; you skipped that step and went straight to preaching. It's pretty clear that a lot of other people feel that was worth commenting on. I mean, if you've had to say it four times, maybe you should reexamine how people are interpreting your communications.
Your question is not legitimate. Your assumptions are wrong.
So I'm not an expert and that makes me 'ignorant'?
Simply put, yes. There are people who are not experts but are knowledgeable, but your statements pretty clearly precluded that.
What kind of fucking argument is that? I'm not an expert in chess, does that mean I'm ignorant in that too?
Yes. I am also ignorant of most things in the chess world.
I guess with that logic anyone without alphabet soup after their name is pretty goddamn stupid huh. How exactly does 'not an expert' translate to 'self-admittedly ignorant'? Well... I'll wait... Nothing? Didn't think so.
The problem here is this: While everyone is ignorant about almost everything, you seem to take that personally. Let me be very clear: I'm ignorant about almost everything. You are as well. That is not a personal attack, it's a fact. Thinking that you're not, and making claims contrary to people that do know more then you does in fact make you quite arrogant. You admitted to not being an expert as well as making unsupported claims that disagree with known theory and models. You clearly don't understand the basis of these models, the science, etc. You are ignorant on this matter.
The fact of the matter ... arguments on BOTH sides are flawed. Neither side tends to take into account astronomical events - the sun spot cycle, 'near' supernovae, passing astronomical objects, etc.
Not true. You are clearly ignorant of the work done by climate scientists that addresses these exact things. That is not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. Your claiming to have this knowledge/expertise is, however, arrogant.
....that mini ice age we had ~500 years ago and its causes for one.
Climate scientists models not only account for it, but their models actually will predict it.
To sum up: being ignorant isn't a bad thing. We don't have enough time in our lives to fix even a tiny fraction of what is learnable. That is okay. However, one of the most difficult things to do is admitting when we don't know enough to have an informed opinion --- and people who are most ignorant often make the most confident statements.
So, you're self-admittedly ignorant of climate science, but you're arrogant enough to disagree with people who aren't? Classy.
.... do show a correlation between increased global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. However, it seems that the carbon dioxide levels increase about 40 to 50 years *after* the temperature increase
This statement is inaccurate and proves your ignorance. Ignorance + arrogance = a great way to make mistakes.
I am not accusing you of ignorance as an attempt at an ad hominem. I am hoping, however, that you actually do some research and learn something before you make statements that are so dumb.
Explaining away this problem is trivial. Atmospheric CO2 and global temperature both control each other. If something changes temperature, then CO2 also changes. If something changes CO2, then temperature also responds. And the best part is, scientists have already worked out how this system works! You don't even have to do the hard work--- just read and understand the knowledge that already exists.
I don't see a problem... unless you read the thing. And don't selectively ignore parts of it....
Oh wait, we can ignore it all! Based on the fact that it is just one of many creation/destruction myths, none with any more validity then the next....
And to think, you just have 10^2 times the length of human civilization to figure out a solution!.
Don't rush, i'll be waiting patiently....
Except they could. Our civilization is a few hundred years old, built of on the ruins of the Greek's and Roman's. You don't think a war could wreck it?
Also, the vast majority of species that have lived on Earth are now extinct. Extinction happens--- and massive death, war and starvation bring us closer to it. It could easily lead there.
Except, obviously you can. Go look at fick's law. You remember algebra, right? Given all the variables except one for a formula, you solve for the last one....
Given that we're talking about using calculus instead, but it's not some kind of insurmountable problem. Especially given that we don't need an exact set of data here, since we have other independent records that like I said, we can calibrate against, such as Ca/Mg data in forams, paleobotany data, Oxygen istopes...
If you think that large scale death, war and starvation are great for human civilization, that's cool bro! But that makes you a twisted fuck, and I hope you don't live in my neighborhood.
I happen to think that such things are bad, so well, we'll just disagree.
Personally, I expect humans to extinct pretty quickly on a geologic time scale, so maybe it's probably moot. But not bullshit.
If there's diffusion you cannot "calibrate it"
Really?
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick's_law
Laws describing diffusion have been available since 1855. I'm happy to come on slashdot and add some facts to discussion, but you're not even willing to do the most basic research on your own. Diffusion isn't Shiva. It's not the destroyer of worlds. It's doesn't leave a flat burning husk in it's wake.
It's more like a hippy, saying, heeey, everything's okay. It changes concentrations in a predictable and understandable matter. I mean, the article you linked to even said as much.
I meant exactly as I said. Your criticisms are very, very, weak.
Sure you can. You're smart; you can figure this out.
That's a really good question!
In fact, if anyone has a good/compete answer, I'm sure it's publishable; but I don't know of any work that has addressed it. That said, I'm not an expert; let's hope one shows up and answers.
That said, short term fluctuations in climate are readily recordable in some kinds of data. Approximately 120k years ago, the an interglacial period resulted in ocean levels 6m higher then those today. The results of this included the building of barrier reefs on what now is dry land; these reefs are found world-wide, from the Caribbean to Australia. This is the MIS 5e, for Marine Isotope Substage 5E. Based on isotope data, workers designated stages; later, paleontologists found the hard evidence of such on dry land.
We can detect sea level change at a ~1000 year scale in this period. One of the first things Christopher Columbus encounter when visiting the new world were these coral reefs, strangely standing vanguard from above the ocean....
So yeah, looking merely at sea levels we should be able to reconstruct climate 100kya from that alone, since ocean level and global climate are inextricably linked. But, we're not even touching on the more powerful methods of climate reconstruction that are employed...
I've talked about MIS 5e because that's something that I am personally familiar with. The evidence is pretty irrefutable; sea levels were higher in the past, and changed rapidly. But this is just something I know a bit about; I wouldn't expect someone with more data to randomly show up and crunch your question... even though I'm sure they're out there.
It would be effort well-spent regardless of the origin of the warming.
Being a skeptic doesn't make you a denialist.
Suggesting you know more then people who've spent their life working on the problem, and that there is a VAST CONSPIRACY, in spite of lack of knowledge--- is what makes a denialist. As well as a propensity to uncritically agree with anyone who's against the MAN.
I agree, though--- we should question what we should do. Anthropogenic or not, a warming Earth could cause massive problems to civilization. We need to find a good (or even best?) solution to the problem. And not just wait for events to overrun us...
Wait, you're saying the Catholic church is persecuting you???
Galileo succeeded because he had evidence on his side, not because he was persecuted. You realize that you can be persecuted and be wrong, right?
Except there are other ways to proxy atmospheric CO2 that we can use to calibrate that data.
So yeah, we can tell. 380ppm isn't unsually high on a geologic scale; in the Paleozoic, levels were as much as 10x higher. Of course, for the Holocene, 380ppm is pretty darn high. Unprecedentedly high.