What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[Pierre I am]

What other forums am i on? Yes. Everyone who doesnt agree is a troll. Very original. I dont think youre full of shit. I just dont classify you as a scientist.

You're entitled to your opinion and that's fine. I really did want to try and answer any of your questions and doubts with the leading research done by the scientist in the field. But it seems like you already have seen some of them and have already cemented your view on it.

If you don't view me as a scientist because I'm new in the field and I don't have 30 years of research under my belt that's cool, but you should probably chill out on the verbal abuse that you deliver to others. I lost my temper and snapped at you which I probably shouldn't have done.

 

[nbean16]

You're entitled to your opinion and that's fine. I really did want to try and answer any of your questions and doubts with the leading research done by the scientist in the field. But it seems like you already have seen some of them and have already cemented your view on it.

If you don't view me as a scientist because I'm new in the field and I don't have 30 years of research under my belt that's cool, but you should probably chill out on the verbal abuse that you deliver to others. I lost my temper and snapped at you which I probably shouldn't have done.

Please show me the verbal abuse. Please show me where you have seen me on other forums, cause you straight up made that up. You acted like a jerk and i gave it back to you.

Yes i have seen some of the leading research, but im not closed off to reading things i havent. Im sure theres plenty i havent read. Theres been several of these threads. I dont have a problem debating actual data but generally avoid it here because the second people get the hint that you dont fully subscribe to agw then it devolves into "durr, you must be a republican. You think the earth is flat too? 93% of scientists believe it so youre dumb if you dont too." And it mostly comes from people who dont know what the hell theyre talking about and just eat up shit they see on tv. The only one who consistently presents data without the condescending bullshit is coors. Im glad he posts and i dont always agree with him, but he doesnt come off as superior to those he disagrees with.

If you genuinely want me to read some published papers that i havent and tell you the parts that dont make sense to me then i will. Pm me or send me links and ill read them. I have no real poilitical affiliation and didnt decide to disagree with agw for any reason other than the research i read didnt make sense and made too many leaps. Granted, when i read a ton on climate change it was around 5 years ago. Im sure there is newer data i have not considered outside of some of the studies in the ipcc report in 2014.

 

[cfives]

You're entitled to your opinion and that's fine. I really did want to try and answer any of your questions and doubts with the leading research done by the scientist in the field. But it seems like you already have seen some of them and have already cemented your view on it.

If you don't view me as a scientist because I'm new in the field and I don't have 30 years of research under my belt that's cool,

For what it is worth, several of your posts might be seen as close minded and off-putting. Maybe the scientist in the field can analyze your posts to see if they sway public opinion towards or away from his or her findings?

 

[Brokenlink]

Please show me the verbal abuse. Please show me where you have seen me on other forums, cause you straight up made that up. You acted like a jerk and i gave it back to you.

Yes i have seen some of the leading research, but im not closed off to reading things i havent. Im sure theres plenty i havent read. Theres been several of these threads. I dont have a problem debating actual data but generally avoid it here because the second people get the hint that you dont fully subscribe to agw then it devolves into "durr, you must be a republican. You think the earth is flat too? 93% of scientists believe it so youre dumb if you dont too." And it mostly comes from people who dont know what the hell theyre talking about and just eat up shit they see on tv. The only one who consistently presents data without the condescending bullshit is coors. Im glad he posts and i dont always agree with him, but he doesnt come off as superior to those he disagrees with.

If you genuinely want me to read some published papers that i havent and tell you the parts that dont make sense to me then i will. Pm me or send me links and ill read them. I have no real poilitical affiliation and didnt decide to disagree with agw for any reason other than the research i read didnt make sense and made too many leaps. Granted, when i read a ton on climate change it was around 5 years ago. Im sure there is newer data i have not considered outside of some of the studies in the ipcc report in 2014.

You know Nbean, it seems that everyone you disagree with seems to act superior to you. It might be your reaction that needs adjusting. That said, regarding you qualifying Pierre as a scientist; what do you do? How long do you feel you need to be in a field before you are classified as that profession? Engineers come out of college as engineers, philosophers come out of college as philosophers, teachers get their credential and bam, they're teachers. But a scientist? No. I'm just trying to gauge how long it has to be in your mind.

 

[Pierre I am]

For what it is worth, several of your posts might be seen as close minded and off-putting. Maybe the scientist in the field can analyze your posts to see if they sway public opinion towards or away from his or her findings?

Fair enough. I lost my temper and apologized multiple times for it.

 

[CocoLoco]

You know Nbean, it seems that everyone you disagree with seems to act superior to you. It might be your reaction that needs adjusting. That said, regarding you qualifying Pierre as a scientist; what do you do? How long do you feel you need to be in a field before you are classified as that profession? Engineers come out of college as engineers, philosophers come out of college as philosophers, teachers get their credential and bam, they're teachers. But a scientist? No. I'm just trying to gauge how long it has to be in your mind.

 

[tzrider]

There is an aspect to the assumptions that a lot of the current theory is based on that has always bothered me and that I haven't found addressed anywhere. It seems that much of our understanding of past temperature and CO2 levels come from analyzing ice cores. The ice core data indicates that the rate of warming and CO2 levels we're seeing now are unprecedented.

But what if they're not unprecedented and temperatures have risen higher in the past than we believe? If temperatures rose high enough, ice could melt in polar regions, thereby erasing the record of CO2 levels in that period. This would leave only ice that had lower levels of CO2 than had actually been present during the warmer periods.

The ice core data available frequently uses the phrase "continuous ice core records," but it's not clear to me what this really means. It seems to mean that the ice core is continuous; I haven't found anything stating we are certain there haven't been periods where temperatures rose high enough to melt some of the record. On the other hand, the ANDRILL Antarctic sedimentary cores appear to show that there is vastly more dynamicism in the Antarctic ice pack than was previously suspected. This isn't a prominent topic in the climate change conversation, which is unfortunate, because a lot of what we "know" about global conditions in the past relies on the assumption that the ice cores are truly a continuous, unaltered record. They might not be.

 

[louemc]

If you don't view me as a scientist because I'm new in the field and I don't have 30 years of research under my belt that's cool, but you should probably chill out on the verbal abuse that you deliver to others. I lost my temper and snapped at you which I probably shouldn't have done.

I have liked all of your posts.... I'm glad that You are here, to post your opinions/views in your field.

 

[byke]

Fair enough. I lost my temper and apologized multiple times for it.

You don't have anything to apologize for. That was just being a little snippy, once, not even close to losing temper. Someone gives you shit for having a BS in Meteorology with a concentration in climate science, but he knows what's up because he read some papers from Michael Crichton, and you're the bozo? Instead he'd listen to someone who went to *medical* school in the damned 1960's?? Absolutely ridiculous. I used to enjoy his skepticism in these threads, but he's silent when it's data time and all too happy to engage when it's meaningless argument time. And not to just be on team science, brokenlink screws it up for the climate people when he gets all pissed off and doesn't calmly engage with information, same as how nbean screws it up for the skeptics when he gets all pissed off and doesn't calmly engage with information. Yes, I'm guilty too, but it doesn't negate anything I said.

 

[CoorsLight]

There is an aspect to the assumptions that a lot of the current theory is based on that has always bothered me and that I haven't found addressed anywhere. It seems that much of our understanding of past temperature and CO2 levels come from analyzing ice cores. The ice core data indicates that the rate of warming and CO2 levels we're seeing now are unprecedented.

But what if they're not unprecedented and temperatures have risen higher in the past than we believe? If temperatures rose high enough, ice could melt in polar regions, thereby erasing the record of CO2 levels in that period. This would leave only ice that had lower levels of CO2 than had actually been present during the warmer periods.

The ice core data available frequently uses the phrase "continuous ice core records," but it's not clear to me what this really means. It seems to mean that the ice core is continuous; I haven't found anything stating we are certain there haven't been periods where temperatures rose high enough to melt some of the record. On the other hand, the ANDRILL Antarctic sedimentary cores appear to show that there is vastly more dynamicism in the Antarctic ice pack than was previously suspected. This isn't a prominent topic in the climate change conversation, which is unfortunate, because a lot of what we "know" about global conditions in the past relies on the assumption that the ice cores are truly a continuous, unaltered record. They might not be.

That is a great question. I don't know how they correct,m or if they correct for melting when analyzing ice cores. There is a group at UCI that does that work, I believe the name is Saltzman. May want to visit his page, take a look at how they address that. Email him if you don't get any answers. He should at least point you in the right direction.

The CO2 analyses of ice cores has been primarily a tool to look at atmospheric composition, and many more chemicals besides CO2 are analyzed. The CO2 data correlates strongly with tree ring data to show the correlation of temperature and CO2 content. But this is just a historical correlation.

The thing is that the degree of radiative forcing due to CO2 is a known quantity, because we can take accurate measurements of CO2, and we know how much infrared CO2 absorbs relative to N2 and O2. Ice core samples don't do much for us to estimate the positive forcing impact of CO2 because we can do much more precise and accurate measurements without looking at them. So even if the ice core data is flawed, it doesn't change the error bars on the radiative forcing chart.

 

[Brokenlink]

You don't have anything to apologize for. That was just being a little snippy, once, not even close to losing temper. Someone gives you shit for having a BS in Meteorology with a concentration in climate science, but he knows what's up because he read some papers from Michael Crichton, and you're the bozo? Instead he'd listen to someone who went to *medical* school in the damned 1960's?? Absolutely ridiculous. I used to enjoy his skepticism in these threads, but he's silent when it's data time and all too happy to engage when it's meaningless argument time. And not to just be on team science, brokenlink screws it up for the climate people when he gets all pissed off and doesn't calmly engage with information, same as how nbean screws it up for the skeptics when he gets all pissed off and doesn't calmly engage with information. Yes, I'm guilty too, but it doesn't negate anything I said.

Where did I get pissed off and not calmly engage with information? I'm confused how I screwed it all up? I just went back and looked at all of my posts in this thread and am completely confused by your statement.

 

[Pierre I am]

There is an aspect to the assumptions that a lot of the current theory is based on that has always bothered me and that I haven't found addressed anywhere. It seems that much of our understanding of past temperature and CO2 levels come from analyzing ice cores. The ice core data indicates that the rate of warming and CO2 levels we're seeing now are unprecedented.

But what if they're not unprecedented and temperatures have risen higher in the past than we believe? If temperatures rose high enough, ice could melt in polar regions, thereby erasing the record of CO2 levels in that period. This would leave only ice that had lower levels of CO2 than had actually been present during the warmer periods.

The ice core data available frequently uses the phrase "continuous ice core records," but it's not clear to me what this really means. It seems to mean that the ice core is continuous; I haven't found anything stating we are certain there haven't been periods where temperatures rose high enough to melt some of the record. On the other hand, the ANDRILL Antarctic sedimentary cores appear to show that there is vastly more dynamicism in the Antarctic ice pack than was previously suspected. This isn't a prominent topic in the climate change conversation, which is unfortunate, because a lot of what we "know" about global conditions in the past relies on the assumption that the ice cores are truly a continuous, unaltered record. They might not be.

You do bring a great point but climate scientist do not just look at ice core datas. the ice core data was utilized as a way to see the general "natural" CO2 oscillation in the past 500k years. What we mean by that is basically how the CO2 changes without anthronpogenic forcing ( AKA fossil fuel burning).

It is true that CO2 has been higher in the past millions of years and that temperatures were higher. What is scaring a lot of climatologist is how quickly we are increasing these time scales. Instead of it being a natural oscillation it's happening in a couple centuries.

Similar style data is acquired from tree rings and fossilized pollen from certain tree species. The tree rings give you a great view of the general temperature / humid / co2 at the time. The fossilized pollen also allows you to see when certain tree species had optimal seasons where they spewed a bunch of pollen.

Also when it comes to CO2 we have great instrument records that are dating back to the 1950's that show how quickly we have increased the global atmospheric concentration.


TLDR: Ice core data gives you an idea of a regular / non-human induced CO2 oscillation.

 

[Brokenlink]

But it was.


Wow, fast edit there Pierre.

 

[Pierre I am]

But it was.


Wow, fast edit there Pierre.

 

[ThumperX]

There is an aspect to the assumptions that a lot of the current theory is based on that has always bothered me and that I haven't found addressed anywhere. It seems that much of our understanding of past temperature and CO2 levels come from analyzing ice cores. The ice core data indicates that the rate of warming and CO2 levels we're seeing now are unprecedented.

But what if they're not unprecedented and temperatures have risen higher in the past than we believe? If temperatures rose high enough, ice could melt in polar regions, thereby erasing the record of CO2 levels in that period. This would leave only ice that had lower levels of CO2 than had actually been present during the warmer periods.

The ice core data available frequently uses the phrase "continuous ice core records," but it's not clear to me what this really means. It seems to mean that the ice core is continuous; I haven't found anything stating we are certain there haven't been periods where temperatures rose high enough to melt some of the record. On the other hand, the ANDRILL Antarctic sedimentary cores appear to show that there is vastly more dynamicism in the Antarctic ice pack than was previously suspected. This isn't a prominent topic in the climate change conversation, which is unfortunate, because a lot of what we "know" about global conditions in the past relies on the assumption that the ice cores are truly a continuous, unaltered record. They might not be.

There was a paper I read while in school addressing this. Apparently by studying the direction of growth (spiral) on copepods sea temperatures could be determined, indicating how far the Greenland icecap spanned.
I'm trying to dig it up now as the fossilized copepods tell a story that at times is inconsistent with the ice cores.

 

[Pierre I am]

There was a paper I read while in school addressing this. Apparently by studying the direction of growth (spiral) on copepods sea temperatures could be determined, indicating how far the Greenland icecap spanned.
I'm trying to dig it up now as the fossilized copepods tell a story that at times is inconsistent with the ice cores.

Here is an interactive link where you can play around with all the factors:

http://carbonconnections.bscs.org/curriculum/unit-01/field-trip-02/index.php


It has sediment data, CO2 ice core & temperature.

 

[tzrider]

TLDR: Ice core data gives you an idea of a regular / non-human induced CO2 oscillation.

Unless the amplitude of those natural oscillations was wide enough to melt some of the surface ice during those periods, lopping off the peaks in the Ice core record. The true range of natural oscillations could be distorted (lessened) in that way.

CoorsLight: Checking out Saltzman's page now.

 

[byke]

Where did I get pissed off and not calmly engage with information? I'm confused how I screwed it all up? I just went back and looked at all of my posts in this thread and am completely confused by your statement.

I don't get why people get hung up on this part of the discussion. Who gives a fuck how much we influence it? The bottom line is that the climate is changing rapidly. This will lead to a lot of changes that have the potential to really fuck us up as a species, as well as countless other species. What can we do about it?

Argue about the fucking cause.

This kind of stuff. It's angry.

Again, why does that matter? You are arguing about who broke the priceless vase. Meanwhile, the vase is broken and nobody is getting glue to fix it because people like you are too busy trying to deflect or project blame.

And this kind of stuff, which is a little more subtle. It's like trying to solve a problem in the typical democrat/republican finger pointing fashion. Is this really the fault of folks like him? C'mon meow.

It's not that big of a deal. You're one of the very few in here educated on the topic and I know you're not obligated to anything on the interwebs, but the presentation of information is the area what's hurting the most, imo.

 

[tzrider]

There was a paper I read while in school addressing this. Apparently by studying the direction of growth (spiral) on copepods sea temperatures could be determined, indicating how far the Greenland icecap spanned.
I'm trying to dig it up now as the fossilized copepods tell a story that at times is inconsistent with the ice cores.

Interesting. The ANDRILL sediment cores are inconsistent with the ice cores too.

 

[Pierre I am]

Interesting. The ANDRILL sediment cores are inconsistent with the ice cores too.

Check out what me and coors wrote + the link i posted.