Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[Elim Garak]

Doing nothing will ruin our civilization just as badly.

You have no proof of that.
Anywho if doing nothing and doing something leads to the same result - it's best to not do a thing.

You're implying that climate trends are entirely random and not the result of discernable factors.

It's about statistics and its predictive power.
Climate history doesn't have predictive power.

[petej0]

I dont think it is. They compare a complicated, normalized average versus maximum absolutes. Maxima are reached very rarely. So they reduced the data by an insane amount and used it to "disprove" the aforementioned averages... That's not credible.

Exactly, thats why its hard to know for sure unless we have the data points.

That's not how CO2 sequestration works.

Plants grow, and take in carbon they use to grow. This "locks in" the carbon in their structure. Once they've grown, that carbon is "sequestered", in that it's contained within them rather than released into the atmosphere. When the plant dies, and rots/burns/etc, the carbon is mostly released.

Existing forests, like the rain forests, are not an ongoing CO2 sequestration process. They sequester a certain amount of carbon, and then, when they're fully grown and into a mature cycle, that amount of carbon plateaus. It doesn't increase over time; it is not locking away more and more carbon every year. New growth locks in new carbon, but old growth decaying releases just as much, and it's a static system.

If emissions numbers increase (as they have), existing forest cover cannot sequester those increased emissions, not without expanding those forests into new areas. The planet couldn't keep up regardless. Clear-cutting isn't helping anything, but it's not attacking some natural process that could scale up carbon sequestration naturally, either.

To make an analogy, imagine we're in a boat. It's sprung a leak, that's spewing 14 gallons of water into the boat per minute. We've got a bucket marked "rain forests" that can hold a gallon of water. Bailing isn't an option (because there's no way to "bail out" CO2 from the atmosphere).

Throwing the bucket overboard ("clear cutting") doesn't help things, but filling it with that gallon of water it could hold wasn't going to fix anything about the actual problem, either. It just means the first minute only fills the boat with 13 gallons of water, and then the bucket can't help any more.

Exactly, so as long as the rain forests are growing it is taking in CO2.

[Arenis]

Based on the data about all the previous lottery winners predict the next one.

I'm not following you??

[Elegiac]

You have no proof of that.

Apart from all the evidence that has been posted in this thread, sure.

Anywho if doing nothing and doing something leads to the same result - it's best to not do a thing.

You're the one who is claiming that it will 'ruin our civilisation'. Prove it.

It's about statistics and its predictive power.
Climate history doesn't have predictive power.

Sure it does. Understanding that X factors led to Y phenomenon historically is an excellent basis for prediction that X factors will lead to Y in the future.

[Elim Garak]

I'm not following you??

Really? You claim that statistics have predictive power, I ask you to prove it.
Let's try an easy one. Given the data from the past on sun rising every day - will it rise tomorrow?

[correct answer: I don't know, but likely based on the available data]

[Dug]

You have no proof of that.
Anywho if doing nothing and doing something leads to the same result - it's best to not do a thing.

What's your proof that "doing something" will lead to "ruining our civilization"?

This pseudo-intellectual garbage is laughable. Nothing can be predicted with 101% certainty so just do nothing because you could be wrong?

[Elim Garak]

Apart from all the evidence that has been posted in this thread, sure.

Evidence of the future? Really? Dibs on the next time travel ride.

You're the one who is claiming that it will 'ruin our civilisation'. Prove it.

Prove a solution to climate change as a "given".

Sure it does. Understanding that X factors led to Y phenomenon historically is an excellent basis for prediction that X factors will lead to Y in the future.

Might, not will. Duh.

[Lollis]

There's nothing we can do, effectively, without ruining our civilization.

You have no proof of that.

We can all play that game.

[Deleted]

I have not made personal judgments of you, or called you names. Why not keep it civil, instead? Do you not understand that your arguments are made weaker by insults, not stronger? Have you considered debating in a polite manner? Try it, you will like it!

If you keep denying science, the rabid pro-science posters, such as Endus, will jump all over you. I'm just saying...

Rabid pro science

Wtf do I read on here at times?

[Lollis]

Prove a solution to climate change as a "given".

You are the one making the claim that our civilisation will be ruined. The onus is on you.

[Elim Garak]

We can all play that game.

Great, it's so inclusive.

[Endus]

It's about statistics and its predictive power.
Climate history doesn't have predictive power.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

See Chapters 9, 11, and 12. You're just flat-out wrong about this.

Exactly, so as long as the rain forests are growing it is taking in CO2.

That only applies to new raid forests, not ones that already exist. And replanting all the clear-cut areas wouldn't put much of a dent in the CO2 emissions we put out.

[Elim Garak]

You are the one making the claim that our civilisation will be ruined. The onus is on you.

I asked for a solution to climate change so I can use it as a "GIVEN" to demonstrate how it will ruin our civilization. Duh.

[Acidbaron]

There's nothing we can do, effectively, without ruining our civilization.

That's not an answer to what i asked that's merely tinhatfoil nonsense. Is that the best reason people can come up that it "might" ruin something now but they don't even know what that something is.

[Elim Garak]

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

See Chapters 9, 11, and 12. You're just flat-out wrong about this.

How am I wrong about it? Climate Scientists know the future? They have a model that predicts exact future?

[Endus]

How am I wrong about it? Climate Scientists know the future? They have a model that predicts exact future?

And now you're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what modeling is. You're not discussing this in good faith.

[Elim Garak]

That's not an answer to what i asked that's merely tinhatfoil nonsense. Is that the best reason people can come up that it "might" ruin something now but they don't even know what that something is.

The benefit of not doing something is not doing that something. Obviously.

[Lollis]

I asked for a solution to climate change so I can use it as a "GIVEN" to demonstrate how it will ruin our civilization. Duh.

There are plenty of solutions, you have claimed that they will ruin our civilisation. Since you seemingly have a hardon for arguing exact semantics, you have therefore inclusively said that ALL solutions will ruin our civilisation. Therefore I say again; the burdon of proof is squarely on you.

[Chrysia]

Might, not will. Duh.

No, not "might." "Very likely will based on all current data." Stop acting like major scientific hypotheses and theories are fucking guesses.

Oh, and gravity isn't a fact. The apparent attraction of objects with mass is a fact, but we actually know very little about why they attract. The force we call gravity is the best current explanation, but that doesn't make it a fact.

[Acidbaron]

The benefit of not doing something is not doing that something. Obviously.

Seems to me you picked the wrong character from DS9, Rom would be more fitting.

The benefit of not doing something with obvious risks attached to not doing something has no beneficial effect especially when the industry is already moving towards more greener solutions out of not just environmental but also economic as the old including nuclear energy sources are no longer profitable to maintain especially when the plants that are active now are being written off.

So all i get from this is that you oppose something but you don't even know what you're opposing it for.