Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

If Sea Levels Rise While Your Head is Stuck in the Sand...Follow

#52 Jun 08 2012 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
I'm drunk and I approve of this thread.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#53 Jun 09 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
It's bad enough very few people even know what the word means, but now they went and changed irony's definition to "accurate summation of posting habits" ?

Yes, they did. Literally.

I see what you did there.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#54 Jun 11 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The industrial revolution is generally considered to have started in the mid 1700s, but most of the increases and adoptions occurred in the mid 1800s (1830 to 1880).

Yes, because coal wasn't used until the industrial reveolution. Ever. At all. Definitely not a widespread source of fuel, prior to that. Nope, You sure got me there. Smiley: rolleyes


So Cat was wrong when she said that CO2 levels spiked "in the 1800s"? Which is it? I'm responding to what global warming advocates claim. If you want to argue that their claims are wrong, then by all means go for it!

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Which is why Cat spoke of CO2 levels beginning to rise "in the 1800s". Not before the 1800s, "in" the 1800s. Specifically in the mid 1800s.

I am sure Cat does not appreciate YOU attempting to tell us why SHE said something.


Huh?

catwho wrote:
Actually, most climate change believers know that the spike in CO2 emissions, and thus the cause of the temperature increase, began in the 1800s when we started spewing coal into the atmosphere on industrial scales.


Seriously? Here's that irony I mentioned coming back to bite you.

Quote:
At least I would not appreciate it if I were her, since I have never seen you make an assumption that was correct. Ever.Smiley: lol


Except for this one, of course. I'm sure you'll remember this the next time you fail so spectacularly. No... I'm pretty sure you wont.

Edited, Jun 11th 2012 3:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jun 11 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,806 posts
The problem with historical sampling and graphs of CO2, is that prior to about 1952, we didn't posess accurate CO2 measuring equipment. There are a few isolated studies prior to 1952, going back all the way to 1800, but many scientists believe that data is faulty for a variety of reasons, including methodology, scientific understanding of the time, limited scope. limited sampling areas and other factors.

The other method of sampling historical Co2 levels is ice core sampling, which will get you close to a given epoch, but the further back you go, the more difficult it becomes to assign a specific date to a given ice layer. Some we can date fairly accuratly from embedded ash layers in the ice, or things of that nature, but for the most part we're talking hundred year spreads at a minimum. with absolutly no way to really know if the observed gas level in the core sample is really representative of what the Co2 conditions were at the time of freezing. We think we have a pretty good guess, but until we have a hundred years or so to observe ice samples where we know the exact date of creation, we don't really know, and even then there are a huge number of variables, such as re-melt, particulate impuraties in the ice offgassing and or reacting with the CO2 already there, etc.

There was much more vegitation on earth early on, (rain forests, pacific forests, etc.) and I would expect more CO2 in the atmosphere today than back then logically, but we really don't know, and presenting data on a graph like that that at best contains uncertanties, and at worst contains bad data is a problem.

That and the whole interesting phenominon of soot particles from coal burning potentially acting as a seed for snowflake formation and making winter snow worse in some areas than it would have been otherwise.

____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#56 Jun 12 2012 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
Interesting bit, new material to trap CO2, however its selectivity is best below the CO2 triple-point. Hello to expensive cooling systems; generating CO2 to just to trap it... Smiley: frown

Quote:
At 273 K, the selectivity ratio of CO2 in NOTT-202a, obtained
from Henry's law, is 2.9:1, 27:1 and 27:1 for CH4, N2 and O2,
respectively (Table 1). These values are lower than the selectivity
ratio obtained at ambient temperature for ranges of other MOF/ZIF
(ZIF: zeolitic imidazolate framework) and carbon molecular sieve
materials that show selectivities of 10:1 for CO2=CH4, 81:1 for
CO2=N2 and 50:1 for CO2=O2 (refs 4143). In contrast, at 195 K,
below the triple point, excellent selectivity of adsorption of CO2
was observed at 24:1 for CO2=CH4, 285:1 for CO2=N2 and
145:1 for CO2=O2 (Table 1), higher than for other MOF/ZIF and
carbon molecular sieve materials39,4143. Importantly, the selectivity
of trapping of CO2 is enhanced (by about four times) by the
hysteretic CO2 desorption coupled with microscopic CO2host
ordering, yielding extremely high values at 102:1 for CO2=CH4,
1,220:1 for CO2=N2 and 622:1 for CO2=O2. This suggests that
NOTT-202a, with a gas storage capacity of up to 20 mmol g􀀀1
at 1.0 bar, has the potential to selectively capture and trap CO2
from gaseous mixtures with high efficiency below the triple point.
Thus, the selectivity for CO2 over other gases in NOTT-202a can
be modulated by choice of operation temperature and enhanced
by the selective hysteretic CO2 desorption. This represents a
new class of flexible network solids capable of efficient and
effective capturing of CO2.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Jun 12 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
Also, on the OP, I'm still a little curious as to how this whole thing became a big deal. I'm a bit in the dark, but here's a nice quote I came across:

Quote:
The best science we have argues the planet will continue to warm, melting icecaps, causing accelerated sea level rise. Between 1900 - 2007, global sea level rose at 1.7 mm per year (Bindoff et al., 2007). Between 1993 - 2012, sea level rise accelerated to 3.1 mm per year, a 75% increase over the 20th century rate. If this accelerated rate continues to 2100, global sea level rise will be 10.7", which is higher than the 8" rise North Carolina is being told to plan for.


I'm not all up-to-date on this whole sea level rising thing. Regardless of who's right or wrong is the difference between 8" and 10.7" really that large that it necessitates a different planning strategy? To the layman it seems a little silly of a thing to bicker about. I suppose its the principle of the thing though? Smiley: confused
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#58 Jun 12 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
To the layman it seems a little silly of a thing to bicker about. I suppose its the principle of the thing though? Smiley: confused

It doesn't help that berks like Al Gore go around forecasting doom and destruction (always 10 years from now, by which time everybody will forget what he said when it doesn't come true). And people believe him, I suspect for the same reason that people believe that the Rapture is just around the corner.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#59 Jun 12 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
The most accurate means of measuring CO2 levels on a year by year basis is tree ring samples, which can go back hundreds to thousands of years for very large, old trees and can be dated simply by counting. The reason that the methodology is questioned is because localized conditions can promote growth, or inhibit it. Yet, in these ancient trees, we have records of the atmosphere that precisely line up with known events that affected the entire world: Volcano blew up and caused shadows that made it a bad year for crops? Yep, that tree ring will be smaller.

One tree won't tell the whole story, but hundreds of trees around the world whose rings are matching up identically tell a much more complete story.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#60 Jun 12 2012 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Regardless of who's right or wrong is the difference between 8" and 10.7" really that large that it necessitates a different planning strategy?

Yes. Civil engineering is serious business. A holy crapton of work goes into flood planning here in the heartland; I can only guess what it's like on the coast.

Granted, we have a different set of problems here with it but attacking oceans aren't one of them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Jun 12 2012 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Regardless of who's right or wrong is the difference between 8" and 10.7" really that large that it necessitates a different planning strategy?

Yes. Civil engineering is serious business. A holy crapton of work goes into flood planning here in the heartland; I can only guess what it's like on the coast.

Granted, we have a different set of problems here with it but attacking oceans aren't one of them.


I guess flood planning is the only thing I was really familiar at all with, relatively speaking of course. I've seen the flood maps of our old town, and knew about some of the planning that went into what they would want to build in what flood zone and stuff. But that was all in 'feet above flood stage' for the most part. I mean 6' above flood stage and 10' above meant different things, but there wasn't the detail between say 11'3" and 11'6" or anything. Part of me is kind of impressed if they are really able to predict something that closely 100 or so years in advance, and have the ability to plan for the difference between those two measurements. Yay, science perhaps?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#62 Jun 12 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not expert on it. I just know that when the engineers mark a grade line in a water impacted area as 110.5, they mean 110.5 and not 110.2 and woe befall those who ignore it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jun 12 2012 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Also, on the OP, I'm still a little curious as to how this whole thing became a big deal. I'm a bit in the dark, but here's a nice quote I came across:

Quote:
The best science we have argues the planet will continue to warm, melting icecaps, causing accelerated sea level rise. Between 1900 - 2007, global sea level rose at 1.7 mm per year (Bindoff et al., 2007). Between 1993 - 2012, sea level rise accelerated to 3.1 mm per year, a 75% increase over the 20th century rate. If this accelerated rate continues to 2100, global sea level rise will be 10.7", which is higher than the 8" rise North Carolina is being told to plan for.


I'm not all up-to-date on this whole sea level rising thing. Regardless of who's right or wrong is the difference between 8" and 10.7" really that large that it necessitates a different planning strategy? To the layman it seems a little silly of a thing to bicker about. I suppose its the principle of the thing though? Smiley: confused


I suppose it does matter to engineers and planners. It also matters a lot to developers, since it directly affects the volume of coastal land they have to work with. Assuming that these numbers will end out affecting coastal building codes, it can be a big deal. Depending on the topology, the difference between a projected 1m worst case versus 15" can result in buildings having to be built a hundred feet or more back from the existing waterline. So yeah, it matters.


And of course, there's also the political angle and the whole "OMG! Global Warming!" versus "OMG! Global Warming Denial!". And let's face it, that's a hell of a lot more interesting and fun for most of us. Smiley: tongue



Having said that, I still have issues with the kinds of data in the quote you provided. IMO, it's still suffering from the same sorts of problems Kao spoke of. We have far more accurate measurements of (global) sea level change today than we did 50 years ago, or a century ago. So what's happening is that older measurements are going to tend to be extrapolated over time and area, versus recent data which is very precise. This is significant to something like global sea levels because it tends to soften out trends in the past, while making current ones very obvious. This creates exactly the sort of perception of radical change that said quote talks about.


To illustrate this, imagine you are riding in a car. Imagine also that your only perception of how fast you are going is based on information you are provided (no looking out windows in this case). The car is equipped with a speedometer and a computer which calculates average MPH for the trip. During the first hour of the trip, you are blindfolded and can't read any of the indicators. Then you are allowed to look at them (but nothing else). You note that the average speed for the trip reads 25MPH. Then you note that the current speed is 55MPH. Over the next 5 minutes, you watch these indicators and note that while the average measurement doesn't change, the speed keeps increasing and at the end of that 5 minutes, you are traveling 70MPH.

Would you conclude based on this information that the speed has increased steadily over time and will continue to increase until you crash? Or would you conclude that the speed at any 5 minute period of time varies, sometimes being faster and sometimes being slower? Obviously, the latter, right? You think that the current speed is an anomaly because you can see the exact speed at that time (and the odds of it staying the same as the average over the while trip is very close to zero). But it's your own perception and interpretation that is incorrect. In fact your speed has increased, then decreased, over and over the whole time. You just happened to first start watching the speedometer during a time when the car was traveling much faster than the average.


The point is that we can't say from looking at average increases over a long time during which we were not taking precise measurements what the actual pattern of that time period was. You *always* have to think about the methodology being used. We generate our historical data by taking the smallish bits that we know and then extrapolating across the whole that we don't know. This results in a smoothing of highs and lows just as an average MPH in a car will. You don't assume you traveled that speed the whole time, right? So why do that in this case? The odds of a relatively short period of any measurement we've taken matching an extrapolated average of the past is very very low. Certainly, if we then continue measuring in the present, we will see behavior which will appear to not match historical patterns. It's completely normal and (should be) expected. What's shocking to me is how many people who should know better appear willing to go along with (or even create) hysteria about this.


That's not to say that sea levels aren't rising at a faster rate. But it is to say that we should be skeptical of past data and doubly skeptical of comparing current data patterns to those in the past (which is exactly what you're doing when comparing relative rates of change as in this case). We should absolutely be cautious about making projections based on that sort of comparison. Because in the example I gave below, one might conclude that an hour later, their speed would be 200MPH or so. If they only looked at the data provided that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Jun 12 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
gbaji wrote:

Having said that, I still have issues with the kinds of data in the quote you provided. IMO, it's still suffering from the same sorts of problems Kao spoke of. We have far more accurate measurements of (global) sea level change today than we did 50 years ago, or a century ago. So what's happening is that older measurements are going to tend to be extrapolated over time and area, versus recent data which is very precise. This is significant to something like global sea levels because it tends to soften out trends in the past, while making current ones very obvious. This creates exactly the sort of perception of radical change that said quote talks about.


I figured you would. Smiley: lol

Sorry should have warned you, the guy's a NOAA Scientist and a global warming believer type, you'll want your tinfoil hat. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#65 Jun 12 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Having said that, I still have issues with the kinds of data in the quote you provided. IMO, it's still suffering from the same sorts of problems Kao spoke of. We have far more accurate measurements of (global) sea level change today than we did 50 years ago, or a century ago. So what's happening is that older measurements are going to tend to be extrapolated over time and area, versus recent data which is very precise. This is significant to something like global sea levels because it tends to soften out trends in the past, while making current ones very obvious. This creates exactly the sort of perception of radical change that said quote talks about.


I figured you would. Smiley: lol

Sorry should have warned you, the guy's a NOAA Scientist and a global warming believer type, you'll want your tinfoil hat. Smiley: wink


It's bad interpretation of data regardless of what he may believe or not believe. Surely, you can see that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Jun 13 2012 at 12:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,806 posts
catwho wrote:
The most accurate means of measuring CO2 levels on a year by year basis is tree ring samples, which can go back hundreds to thousands of years for very large, old trees and can be dated simply by counting. The reason that the methodology is questioned is because localized conditions can promote growth, or inhibit it. Yet, in these ancient trees, we have records of the atmosphere that precisely line up with known events that affected the entire world: Volcano blew up and caused shadows that made it a bad year for crops? Yep, that tree ring will be smaller.

One tree won't tell the whole story, but hundreds of trees around the world whose rings are matching up identically tell a much more complete story.


We can infer tree growth from tree ring growth measurements, Which will indeed give us a broad picture of what the temperature was like in the area, rainfall levels, light levels, etc. And you can even make some reasonable assumptions about what factor caused a particular type of growth due to density patterns of the cellulose fibers ( a tree grown in a drought looks different at the ring level than a tree experiancing unusual cold, though both rings will be smaller for example) but again, we cannot infer anything directly about atmospheri CO2 concentrations from these measurements. If nothing else, the parts per million increase supposedly taking place, even if we take the worst case increase values as are, would not have a growth stimulus effect outside the margin for normal tree growth error on most larger trees. For example, most greenhouses that employ CO2 saturation tanks to promote plant growth have to raise the internal atmospheric C02 concentration by a whole percentage point before they see any measurable benifits, partially due to increased absorbtion by the plants themselves. My CO2 injection system for my planted fish tank requires a similar amount of CO2 to have much of any effect at all.

Is there a measurable difference in CO2 levels today compared to those past measurements? Probably. The problem is we can't say with scientific certanty how much of a difference that was.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#67 Jun 13 2012 at 5:41 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
You'd be surprised what botanists can detect on a chemical level, even in old samples. P680 and P700 photosynthesis use a calculable amount of CO2 and the overall health of the plan can be directly extrapolated from that. We did an experiment back in Plant Physiology II with plans that were raised under happy conditions versus plants that were stressed and we could directly measure the amount of CO2 they were sucking in with a $10,000 gadget hooked up to their leaves. Fun times.

____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#68 Jun 13 2012 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,806 posts
Measuring modern levels? sure. Measuring what the levels were in 1862 from a ring alone?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#69 Jun 13 2012 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
And that would just be one tree. Can you get such data on enough trees, over enough of the globe, over enough years to be able to accurately calculate global atmospheric C02 levels over a period of time? And what about selection bias? Is it possible that the only samples we have require specific conditions and/or specific types of trees? How many 200 year old trees do we have to test, and are they really representative of enough geographical areas for us to actually paint a global picture?

Again, you *must* consider carefully where the data you are using came from when doing good science. Factors that may not matter for one use may be of critical importance for another. Blindly using data you have without taking that into account will drive you to make poor analysis.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Jun 14 2012 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
******
43,191 posts
Blindly throwing out conclusions simply because "you" don't agree with them is pretty poor analysis as well.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#71 Jun 14 2012 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,537 posts
The wild fire expert guy says to expect more wild fires in the future. He cites increasing global temps as the reason. In the US, the west is particularly vulnerable.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#72 Jun 14 2012 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Having said that, I still have issues with the kinds of data in the quote you provided. IMO, it's still suffering from the same sorts of problems Kao spoke of. We have far more accurate measurements of (global) sea level change today than we did 50 years ago, or a century ago. So what's happening is that older measurements are going to tend to be extrapolated over time and area, versus recent data which is very precise. This is significant to something like global sea levels because it tends to soften out trends in the past, while making current ones very obvious. This creates exactly the sort of perception of radical change that said quote talks about.


I figured you would. Smiley: lol

Sorry should have warned you, the guy's a NOAA Scientist and a global warming believer type, you'll want your tinfoil hat. Smiley: wink


It's bad interpretation of data regardless of what he may believe or not believe. Surely, you can see that?


Well sure, there's a point where a 2nd order curve fit (I have no idea how complex of an equation they're fitting honestly, I'm just trying to differentiate from linear) can be extended to the point the conclusion is ridiculous. I'm not sure they're there yet with this, given how similar the two analyses are. I fully expect some of these future predictions to be wrong. Sometimes you'll greatly underestimate how quickly mass is being added to glaciers, other times a polar ice cap will unexpectedly disappear on you over the summer. For better or for worse it's a best guess, and ideally it's up to the good people of NC how to respond, and how much they want to spend trying to mitigate the problem.


Edited, Jun 14th 2012 8:21am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#73 Jun 14 2012 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
gbaji wrote:
And that would just be one tree. Can you get such data on enough trees, over enough of the globe, over enough years to be able to accurately calculate global atmospheric C02 levels over a period of time? And what about selection bias? Is it possible that the only samples we have require specific conditions and/or specific types of trees? How many 200 year old trees do we have to test, and are they really representative of enough geographical areas for us to actually paint a global picture?

Again, you *must* consider carefully where the data you are using came from when doing good science. Factors that may not matter for one use may be of critical importance for another. Blindly using data you have without taking that into account will drive you to make poor analysis.


The statistical analysis of dendrochronology is done with heuristics and uses thousands of samples globally. 200 year old trees are not the norm; they go for the thousand year methuselahs whenever they are available. Since the analysis is done with computers measuring the relative sizes of rings within the same trees rather than absolutes, the species of tree does not matter either.

And since the data is aggregate across thousands of trees, if there are local anomalies, they are blended into the average and a single tree's bad year won't affect the entire worldwide picture.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (39)