*** Official Global Warming Thread ***

[Muzzard]

+ now we have fuck all land to fit 6-7billion heads on with the icecaps melted :-s

[wufwugy]

Land /= fertile land

It takes thousands of years for thawed soil to become arable. Agriculture can only shift so much before it dies.

[Muzzard]

Land /= fertile land

It takes thousands of years for thawed soil to become arable. Agriculture can only shift so much before it dies.

Your not getting my point. Probably because I'm not even trying to explain

I never said land=fertile land. Neither did I say that climate and CO2 levels have no correlation.

What I'm saying is it doesn't really matter whether it caused by this or that, natural change or change caused by humans or whatever. If it's natural fuck all we can do, if it's because of human action then it's obv coz we have far too many ppl on the planet. Yeah we can cut CO2 emmisions here and there, but we are still fucked. Cut population by 6billion or more, then we might have enough resources/space etc to actually have some sort of sustainable living.

I say bring on the climate change, let's bring down that population.

[wufwugy]

While the globe is indeed massively overpopulated, bringing the numbers down via pumping out CO2 will reap results nobody can fathom. Things like loss of almost all sea life, loss of majority of plant and animal life, massive desertification, massive human suffering, possibly even total extinction caused by oceanic anoxia, and much more.

[Muzzard]

moar aids then!

[a500lbgorilla]

moar aids then!

Finally, someone is making some damn sense!

[wufwugy]

http://www.physorg.com/print178178343.html

In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.

Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.

Well, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

All this garbage about battling global warming without accounting for global economic activity pisses me the hell off. Nobody seems to realize that if the first-world suddenly stopped using coal/oil then there would be skyrocketing demand in the third-world, and nothing would actually change. The real change will come from forcing levels and sources of consumption, but that won't happen until it's too late

Meanwhile, nobody predicted that the impregnable East Antarctic would be losing mass (yet it now is), every year sets some new record, worst-case scenario predictions in 1997 were more mild than the current most-likely scenario predictions, ALL trends of discovery point towards more and worsening positive feedback loops and severe underestimating of the problem on a yearly basis, etc etc

The Copenhagen garbage going on right now is a laughingstock. Fiddling with numbers and cherry picking data, thinking that hypothetical 10% reduction in a decade will mean anything when predictions are that without INSANE levels of change we'll be living worst-case scenario by 2100, and that new evidence is suggesting that even with complete and immediate curbing of emissions, we'll still see sub-worst case scenario due to lag effects.

They say the East Antarctic can't completely melt for another thousand years, but I guaranfuckingtee that by 2100 they'll be saying that it has about 100 more to go till it's all gone (or something of the like). 100 meters of sea-level rise by 2200 yaa hooo

I am just absolutely baffled at the complacency in the scientific community. I mean it makes no fucking sense that geophysicists can look at the data development over the last couple decades yet not infer that the exact same trends over that time aren't likely to continue when all signs point towards them continuing. We'll find that in 2020 our 2010 predictions were way too mild, and everybody's gonna act like they didn't see it coming, and I'll be sitting here with my thumb up my ass going hurr durr im a durr

[Muzzard]

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Arti..._is_based.html

[boost]

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-11-29-240479.112112_Climategate_They_have_lost_the_data_ upon_which_the_theory_of_global_warming_is_based.h tml

*sigh*.. its been posted before, and its been refuted as nonsense.

[wufwugy]

That's like saying that your HEM or PT3 database has nothing but false HHs since they're not the raw HH

That's also like saying that plywood isn't wood because it's been 'adjusted'

It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions

In other news: you don't owe any taxes. Why? Because the IRS uses rounded numbers, not the real raw numbers; and since they adjust their data in such a way to actually be understandable, that data is entirely false, taxes are a conspiracy, and the IRS is just a secret gubmint building erected by the Jews in 1926 at the behest of Al Gore in exchange for candied peeps

[mcatdog]

It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions

The argument being made is that almost all published climate studies come to the same conclusion because those that come to the opposite conclusion are unlikely to be published or to receive grant money (other than from oil companies themselves).

Even though the "Climategate" scientists were leaders in the field, if we ignore their data then yes, we still have plenty of other data to rely on. But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda, that skews things a lot more than any research that may have come from these specific scientists. And the e-mails show that these scientists were persistently attempting to do this.

I obviously don't think science is a massive conspiracy but certain branches of science can move in that direction if they get hijacked by special-interest politics, corporations or government agencies with an agenda. If a global warming skeptic posted a study that was funded by Exxon Mobil you would rightly point out that that study should not be taken seriously. For the same reason to just say "Well, ignore these guys' data and just focus on everyone else's that says the same thing" is completely missing the point of why what happened was so bad.

[CoccoBill]

I like how this guy puts it:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886

[CoccoBill]

Co2 levels historically go up after temperature rises. So temperature increases cause Co2 to rise not vice versa.

Like omg, we have an unanswered comment.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...-not-leads.php

[a500lbgorilla]

I like how this guy puts it:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886

great link

[CoccoBill]

This is also a good read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...risis-response

[wufwugy]

It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions

The argument being made is that almost all published climate studies come to the same conclusion because those that come to the opposite conclusion are unlikely to be published or to receive grant money (other than from oil companies themselves).

Even though the "Climategate" scientists were leaders in the field, if we ignore their data then yes, we still have plenty of other data to rely on. But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda, that skews things a lot more than any research that may have come from these specific scientists. And the e-mails show that these scientists were persistently attempting to do this.

I obviously don't think science is a massive conspiracy but certain branches of science can move in that direction if they get hijacked by special-interest politics, corporations or government agencies with an agenda. If a global warming skeptic posted a study that was funded by Exxon Mobil you would rightly point out that that study should not be taken seriously. For the same reason to just say "Well, ignore these guys' data and just focus on everyone else's that says the same thing" is completely missing the point of why what happened was so bad.

Is that really the argument being made? It may be your argument, but all the hysteria this has generated has been more about idiots being idiots, not a legitimate attempt to understand.

You're right that there are legitimate concerns, as there are always within all things science. As far as I can tell, 'climategate' has nothing to do with actually attempting to understand the situation, but instead has everything to do with idiots misunderstanding everything yet pretending that they don't

As for more legitimate concerns, I'll just mildly address this

But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda

First off, in order for this to become a big deal there needs to be evidence of foul play. AFAIK, there is none. There appears to only be a bunch of people who don't understand jargon and logic and are blowing it up into something it's not.

And one conclusion, the 'grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda' statement could be an easy misunderstanding. IDers and birthers and truthers and flat-earthers and faked moon landingers all think that they're being unjustly pushed out of the peer review process, when in reality they're being pushed out because they're idiots who don't even engage in adequate peer review. It could be like a biologist not paying attention to a creationist then the creationist screaming bloody murder and that he's being unjustly treated, when in reality he's being pushed out because he's a fucking moron who only wants to screw shit up


Here's my bottom line: I have yet to see any appearance of criticism from those who are actually qualified to provide criticism i.e. from those who understanding the jargon and the process and are accredited in the field etc etc. Until I see this the case is closed for me. On the flip side, what I do see is the hoax machine flinging their shit everywhere. Anti-climate agenda is big tobacco all over again, except 10x more difficult, entrenched, and skilled in propaganda.

[wufwugy]

Co2 levels historically go up after temperature rises. So temperature increases cause Co2 to rise not vice versa.

Like omg, we have an unanswered comment.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...-not-leads.php

I did actually address this I think in a couple somewhat unrelated posts and links, but really I was a little flustered at first because I find it difficult to respond to a syllogistic nightmare that clearly has no understanding of the situation nor any desire to develop said understanding

[mcatdog]

I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out.

And one conclusion, the 'grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda' statement could be an easy misunderstanding. IDers and birthers and truthers and flat-earthers and faked moon landingers all think that they're being unjustly pushed out of the peer review process, when in reality they're being pushed out because they're idiots who don't even engage in adequate peer review. It could be like a biologist not paying attention to a creationist then the creationist screaming bloody murder and that he's being unjustly treated, when in reality he's being pushed out because he's a fucking moron who only wants to screw shit up

This is a really good argument.

[boost]

mcat, you also are ignorning the complete lack of motive. What reason do all these scientist have for this conspiracy?

[mcatdog]

mcat, you also are ignorning the complete lack of motive. What reason do all these scientist have for this conspiracy?

I don't see any reason to think their motive was money or fame or anything like that. They probably just decided that convincing politicians and the general public, and getting legislation passed, was so important that dirty tactics were justified in order to accomplish that goal. If 90% of studies say one thing and 10% say the other thing, the scientific community is capable of drawing conclusions, but the rest of the public may not be. Therefore these scientists elected to squash some legitimate studies that disagreed with their own research.

I think this sort of conspiracy can happen pretty easily whenever science gets entangled with politics, but it's just so dumb because it's 100% certain to get discovered sooner or later, like it did here, and will end up hurting your cause more than it helps.

[CoccoBill]

I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out.

Let's look at the whole snippet with the aforementioned quote in the article:

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.

Again, taken out of context it may look bad, but all he is saying is that they want to stop publications that have been proven faulty from appearing in a report that's used pretty much as a definitive guideline for how to deal with climate change. They're having a hard time convincing world leaders to act as it is, they don't need any additional distractions. Unethical/unprofessional? Somewhat. Condemning or making anything related to their research questionable? Hardly.

[wufwugy]

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out.

Yeah that does appear to be a damning statement.

However, it is also quote-mined, not devoid of ambiguities, and in need of context to provide adequate understanding of what he meant. That's why reasonable people are not going crazy, yet unreasonable people are. I mean isn't it entirely possible that the line was tongue-in-cheek? I'm not sure if that's actually been ruled out.

But anyways, this type of thing is standard, and we're seeing the peer-review process working at its finest. If this is a conspiracy, it's not the first, and like they few other scientist conspiracies in history, the real impact will likely be very minor.

Piltdown Man was a conspiracy. 100% legitimate conspiracy, yet the peer-review process worked correctly and eventually weeded it out. In fact, Piltdown Man wasn't really even getting much attention from scientists in the first place because it didn't fit the fossil record one bit

See that's the thing. If climategate is a real conspiracy, then in what way is a conspiracy? If the data is highly skewed then the entire scientific community would hear about it and start looking into it, and if it didn't make sense in relation to all other data, it would be put on the back burner or so to speak, which is what happened with Piltdown Man. Then eventually the truth would likely get weeded out, then it would be classified as a hoax, yet there wouldn't be much problems because it was already considered an ambiguous anomaly and didn't attribute anything to standard scientific discovery. Which is exactly what happened with Piltdown Man.

This is why I don't care about the opinions of those who are not entrenched within the peer-review process itself. Because they actually understand that if climategate was a fraud, if it was a big fraud it would be obvious because the results would be insane, and if it was a little fraud it wouldn't really change anything since the results would have to agree with other independent sources.

Lay people do not understand this, and they need to shut the hell up. It's like me telling UG how to teach his classes. I don't fucking know how because I don't know anything about teaching classes, but for some weird reason every yahoo on the planet thinks they know everything about anything related to scientific and political issues

Which reminds me in a recent interview, Fedor Emelianenko said that before a fight he often gets calls from people he knows who give him advice. During the interview, he smirked at this like it was a bunch of dummies pretending like they understood his profession better than he did.

But anyways, I know you know all or most of this. I just want to make the point that this isn't logistically adding up to some kind of big internal problem. It his, however, a huge PR problem

P.S. Would like to add that the peer-review is working quite well. Like you said, the guy who wrote that text has already resigned (even though he could be easily justified). That's a very important aspect of the peer-review. It is, as it should be, one strike and you're out. Which is waaaaaaaaaaaay more than can be said for just about any other profession. Not to mention that people on the deniers side get special privileges, whereas those on the scientists side do not. If this wasn't the case then people like Sanford and Ensign would have been fired a long time ago, but miraculously they're not because they're on the right team

[wufwugy]

I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out.

Let's look at the whole snippet with the aforementioned quote in the article:

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.

Again, taken out of context it may look bad, but all he is saying is that they want to stop publications that have been proven faulty from appearing in a report that's used pretty much as a definitive guideline for how to deal with climate change. They're having a hard time convincing world leaders to act as it is, they don't need any additional distractions. Unethical/unprofessional? Somewhat. Condemning or making anything related to their research questionable? Hardly.

Headshot!

This is why I like logical principles and fallacies so much. They provide an excellent guideline by which to not get fooled. For example: quote-mining is a logical fallacy. Knowing this immediately tells me that any time I ever see a quote being mined without a ton of context, it is logically false for me to give heed to the assertions of said quote

It makes figuring stuff out so much easier when you have a basic outline. I recall hearing in a lecture once something along the lines of 'You wouldn't spend time in the jungle without understanding the basics of what to eat, where to sleep, how to not get killed, etc; so why would you engage in logical discussion without a basic understanding of logical principles and fallacies?'

[wufwugy]

As he usually does, Potholer fitty fo clears up the hacked emails thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Rule of thumb: if idiots like something, it's usually wrong. So next time something like this hits the media, check to see what the idiots think, then just assume the opposite is correct.

[wufwugy]

Perfection

[wufwugy]

Can't say I'm surprised

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...y-1846161.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1216131747.htm

Articles basically discuss the recent publications about how the last time the Earth was about ~3C above current, sea levels were ~7 meters higher. I consider it virtually impossible that we don't achieve 3C by 2100 (actually, I fully expect to be closing in on 10C by 2100). It is interesting to note that recent research is saying that even if we stopped all emissions today, we would probably hit 4C warming eventually. I find it rather strange that that research is not getting way more attention because it is among the most devastating

[CoccoBill]

UK government science and technology committee's report of the investigation on the CRU leaks, read at least the summary page:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...h/387/387i.pdf

[wufwugy]

Like has been said, the story of climate change and global ecology is the story of the oceans. Very scary video about what has happened to the ocean and where we're going. I was sort of pleased to see the ecologist gave a much more accurate illustration of what the oceans will be like in 20-50 years than you find in 'mainstream' climate science. I'm still not quite sure why scientists seem paralyzed when it comes to making reasoned, statistical predictions. At least this guy isn't

YouTube - Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean

[wufwugy]

Yikes. At first they said it would take 100 years, then 50, then 20, then just a decade, but don't be surprised when summer Arctic is ice-free in just a few more years. As usual, even the most dire predictions are wussy

As Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible? we could “break another record this year.” Climate Progress

[wufwugy]

I guess this isn't really news since we already know it's 100% fact that the oceans will become lifeless deserts in our lifetime. Maybe some things will be growing here or there....

That aside, this is pretty awful news. Plankton is an essential building block to nearly all life on Earth

The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

[a500lbgorilla]

Give it 6 months and things'll cool down, just you wait and see.

[a500lbgorilla]

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society – reasonmclucus - My Telegraph

I wish there were a Richard Feynman-esque mind to explain the physics behind global warming. That'd clear some stuff up.

[a500lbgorilla]

As he usually does, Potholer fitty fo clears up the hacked emails thing

YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails

Rule of thumb: if idiots like something, it's usually wrong. So next time something like this hits the media, check to see what the idiots think, then just assume the opposite is correct.

And this one: YouTube - 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship (considering it rebuts this video YouTube - Potholer54 is a Denier of Scientific Corruption)

I found pretty good. I still don't understand how a retiring emeritus professor would believe so fervently that AGW was a hoax and that his society of scientists was actively silencing valid debate.

[wufwugy]

I still don't understand how a retiring emeritus professor would believe so fervently that AGW was a hoax and that his society of scientists was actively silencing valid debate.

The vast majority of people do not understand issues outside their area of expertise, yet think they do. It's that simple. There are literally uncountable different areas of expertise, and some of the rules always change with every different area. We expect to find something like nuclear physicists who do not understand geophysics, yet still express opinions as if they're qualified. People routinely fool themselves into thinking that they can understand things via proxy or analogy. This is the primary reason I refused to engage in that economic island retard scenario in that other abortion of a thread. No matter how you slice it, you cannot explain modern econ using a stupid island, and no matter how you slice it, you do not have authority to explain climate science unless you're a leading climate researcher.

And the physics has been explained. It's very, very simple stuff. People are just really, really, really stupid and let themselves get fooled into thinking things that aren't true. The AGW debate was over decades ago, and it was never even a debate in the first place; it was a data gathering process and logical determination. But then liars and retards didn't like that so they started voting Republican.

Either potholer or greenman has a video showing the most basic of the physics and chemistry. It's not that we don't have a Feynman to explain it, it's that it's been explained over and over and over and over but we miss it due to the misdirection tactics of propagandists. Propagandists are not much different than magicians. The latter uses visual misdirection, the former uses psychological misdirection, or however you want to describe it.



Another thing to note is that the most logical analysis of global warming strongly suggests that it is a doomsday scenario i.e. the human world comes to an end. This is extremely hard for people to swallow, and even most climatologists tend to ignore this truth. However, as each year goes by, several more climatologists are coming out saying it really is a going to be the apocalypse, yet they're still mistakenly thinking in terms of mass displacement and ecological destruction. That's baby stuff compared to the real levels of heat trapped in the biomass we're returning to the earth's surface

My prediction, for which I fortunately will not be around to witness, is that AGW turns the earth into one of the hottest and most toxic climates its had since formation. Given the amount of GHG we're releasing, this is almost undeniable. I say "almost" because it's possible that some time in the future we may have some super sci fi artificial sequestration technology that can bring us back from the brink. The bottom line, though, is that we can't open up the coal mines and the permafrost without facing the consequences, and we know those consequences are several magnitudes beyond what humans are capable of dealing with under current and theoretically practical technology

AGW denialism will almost never disappear. Most people are not prepared to admit that everything they are and everything they ever will be, the entire progeny of their entire being, is finished. 150 years from now, when the globe is 10 degrees hotter, be fully prepared for that times' rendition of the teabagger fundie xtians screaming how nothing is wrong or it's god's will or whatever. One of the natures of humankind is that our egos know no bounds. Our egos are adamant in making us subconsciously believe that we are unbeatable and will go on forever.



On the bright side, global warming is awesome. I fully support it, and have zero desire to try to go green or whatever. Nothing imposes suffering as massive and horrible as humans, this suffering increases exponentially with technology, and I believe that given full technological development, the amount of evil in the world will be unfathomable and virtually infinite. AGW annihilation may be the only thing that could stop the sensory havoc we wreak upon ourselves. 30k years ago, the weak died; today, the weak suffer imprisonment, starvation, depression, etc for decades; in the future, the weak will likely suffer limitless misery due to extreme technologies like agelessness and virtual reality.

What do you think is going to happen when the technology exists to trap a sensory perceptive network in a virtual self-replicating and self-sustaining system of torture? It will happen, just like the equivalent happens today to the greatest degree that technology allows. I say bring on the global warming and its total environmental collapse. At least then human suffering will be extinguished once and for all.

[wufwugy]

Figured I might revive thread since I've been looking at some climate change stuff again

Just an FYI buzzkill to the max, there is a zero percent chance humans survive this. That sounds crazy, but it's not because if we were viewing the last 200 years as a matter of geologic record from like a billion years ago, we would call this a very, very, very rapid extinction event

We already know that we're locked in for a few degrees warming, we already know that that warming triggers insanely incredible feedbacks, and we already know that the only negative feedback is an extinction event. It has happened many times in geologic history, but not nearly as quickly as it is currently happening

[a500lbgorilla]

0% chance on what time scale?

[bikes]

Hi, I'm wufwugy.

[wufwugy]

That's anybody's guess, even if the method of chemical shifts and warming was the exact as before. But the method is really different now, and normal heating/extinction events take many millions of years. Our pace is lightning compared to snail though. As to how bad an extinction event would be, nobody knows, and as to how it would happen, nobody knows, but we do know we're mimicking what it takes to make extinction events. Technically, we're already in an extinction event. The amount of ecological destruction of just our last few generations is off the charts high in geologic terms. Way off the charts.

I think we're already in unstoppable feedback area, it just takes fucking forever for shit to manifest. I do think that within our lifetime we will understand the doomsday for what it really is though. Most of the oceans and rainforests will be dead by the time we're old

The thing is that extinction events don't really take that much to be triggered. We going waaaaaaaaay beyond what we think they should take. Things like mass burning of vegetation are thought to have caused anoxic events. That's nothing compared to what we're doing. By the time humans are done, we will have taken the energy of virtually uncountable eons and dumped them onto the surface of the Earth. The consequences can't really be anything other than ming-bogglingly bad

[Penneywize]

whatever wuf

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

[wufwugy]

whatever wuf

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

This was dealt with when it first came about, and I'm not really interested in going back over it thoroughly. Bulletpoints are 1) ten years timespan lol 2) it doesn't matter in the slightest because it's ocean uptake that matters 3) alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist showing up that many times in a yahoo article means the credibility is next to zero

[wufwugy]

Also, I realize in a way I didn't answer rilla's inquiry

I don't know how long an extinction event along the lines of oceanic anoxia will take. Could be 50k years, could be 5 million, could be 2k. The feedbacks to achieve around 10+C warming and 1000PPM should be triggered within a few hundred years at most. I think they're already triggered, but if they're not they will definitely be triggered at 2C warming given the descriptions of what that would do. Regardless, a sociological understanding of this makes the feedbacks already triggered. If, however, the global chemical death scenario like anoxia would take a really really long time to fully bloom, there might be some geo-engineering solutions.

And as to the severity, I'm sure some humans will be able to survive somehow. Not all species died during GHG induced extinction events

[CoccoBill]

Peak oil to the rescue.

[wufwugy]

The thing about peak oil is that it's not about quantity, but rate. We're gonna be pumping a ton of oil out of the ground for an extremely long time, we just won't be able to ramp production up much beyond what it's at to meet demand. Peak oil is about the supply/demand dynamic, not reserves

Even without oil, coal will be overall responsible for way more damage

Even without any fossil, mass livestock and logging will still get the job done all on their own. Hell, I bet logging without replanting is worse than burning coal. Gotta keep in mind that high degrees of global warming have happened before without any fossil release

[BennyLaRue]

Peak oil to the rescue.

Worldwide famine to the rescue first.

They mocked Soylent Green. They were wrong to do so.

[bikes]

Que IN TIME where everyone is genetically modified to age to 25 and then get a year to live unless they can afford it. BUT NO ONE BUT THE RICH LIVES BEYOND 50 MUHAHAHAHAHHAHA

EVISCERATE THE PROLETARIAT

[CoccoBill]

Bump.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...ologists-0815/

[MadMojoMonkey]

My only problem with the anthropomorphic causes is that the argument is a bit of a red herring. It simply doesn't matter if humans are the cause. What matters is that humans are the only agents capable of affecting change on this front.

Global climate change is well documented. The movement of tectonic plates alone (among a wealth of contributing factors) is enough to push the ocean currents all over the place, which has dramatic effects on world climate. The average yearly temperature has been both much higher and also much lower than current average yearly temperatures.

The Earth is in a period between ice ages. The Earth has had hothouse conditions before.

The sun's evolution as a main sequence star will cause it to gradually deliver more and more light to the Earth. This will certainly boil the oceans in due time (at least 100 million years or so from now).

The climate changes. Whether / how much it has been caused by people is simply irrelevant. The facts are that climate changes, that affects us, and we are the only ones capable of doing anything about it.

***
The current trend in the data is that of warming. That will have a profound effect on the shape of the coastlines of the world. As far as direct human impact goes, this is pretty much the extent of it (as I understand). The changing salinity and temperature of the oceans will dramatically alter all of those aquatic biomes. The warming temperatures will change migratory patterns and drive new pressures for the species of the world. This has happened many times before. This will only indirectly affect humans.

Humans are the single most adapting species on the planet. Humans live in deserts of the Sahara and the deserts of Antarctica. From the jungles of the Congo to the vast sprawling metropolitan cities of the world. Humanity is absolutely not threatened (on a catastrophic or extinction level) by global climate change. Any doomsayers who hint at this are being equally pigheaded about the data as the climate change deniers.

***
The erosion of arable land is going to impact humans more profoundly than climate change.

[wufwugy]

The costs of stopping anthropogenic global warming are far higher than the costs of not.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The costs of stopping anthropogenic global warming are far higher than the costs of not.

Yeah, but it's still moot.

Either way, people will deal with it and not go extinct. It's not even an extinction-threatening event. At worst it is going to be massively inconvenient for future generations.

Things will be different, but saying they will be better or worse is an opinion.
Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

***
Personally, I think working to prevent dramatic and sudden climate change is a worthy goal. However, I also understand why the fanaticism has not inspired the will of a huge number of people who have the power to facilitate the changes that are needed.

I think the cataclysmic tone of climate change supporters is not doing them any service.

[JKDS]

Who cares about Florida anyway?

[a500lbgorilla]

However, I also understand why the fanaticism has not inspired the will of a huge number of people who have the power to facilitate the changes that are needed.

I see 'ole Barry, the oil Baron, looking back and forth between an enormous pile of money and the watery eyes of future generations, weighing his options.

[wufwugy]

I see 'ole Barry, the oil Baron, looking back and forth between an enormous pile of money and the watery eyes of future generations, weighing his options.

ol barry's billions are responsible for heightened living standards of future generations. what would make that not the case? well, i guess if you burned it.

[a500lbgorilla]

By inheriting his oil empire from his father Tyler, the oil tycoon, just last week? I'm not seeing it.

[wufwugy]

By inheriting his oil empire from his father Tyler, the oil tycoon, just last week? I'm not seeing it.

savings = future consumption. you'd have to burn the money or something for it to not eventually get dispersed throughout the entire economy.

also the money has no inherent value, it represents production. so even if scrooge mcduck sits on his pile of cash, his acquisition of that cash represents increased production in the economy, which is equivalent to increased wealth in the economy.

[a500lbgorilla]

Tyler was only a late in life oil baron. His wealth came from his life as a financier specializing in corporate takeovers, LIBOR interbank investments, and a nicely timed get in early get out early position on ENRON (and his inheritance, of course).

[wufwugy]

Tyler was only a late in life oil baron. His wealth came from his life as a financier specializing in corporate takeovers (and his inheritance, of course).

perfect response. possibly the main reason people started hating the wealthy is because they no longer equate them with producers of products like henry ford or whatever, but now equate them with "do-nothings" like hedge fund managers. still, the idea that financial markets and high end corporate stuff is making money for nothing is a myth. even the stuff the populace hates is productive work. i can't explain it nearly as well as i would like though, so i'll leave it at that.

[wufwugy]

the fun thing about supply and demand is that even when it looks like something is coming from nothing, it's not.

[a500lbgorilla]

Tyler's brother very cleverly understood supply and demand. He showed it when he once deflated the supply and inflated the demand for aluminum by buying up huge orders of them and putting them in storage.

[wufwugy]

Tyler's brother very cleverly understood supply and demand. He showed it when he once deflated the supply and inflated the demand for aluminum by buying up huge orders of them and putting them in storage.

It's a neat fantasy, but it doesn't actually work. Consumers (and producers) move to alternatives. The long run supply of aluminum is higher than otherwise while the long run supply of alternatives is lower (not accounting for growth of both from innovation). Engagement diamonds are the closest real world example we have to your illustration, but it isn't analogous since the high cost is the allure. Besides, the greater the "natural" demand for aluminum, the more your supply restrictor loses when he doesn't sell. It's just like how the best way to punish racists is to keep it legal for them to hurt themselves by not hiring or servicing productive/paying black people.

Your tycoon sounds like more of a bad businessman who needs a good market to kick his ass.

[Renton]

the fun thing about supply and demand is that even when it looks like something is coming from nothing, it's not.

Sowell's stuff talks about this a lot. Money-changers have been a hated group since time immemorial. Middle-men as well. But it turns out that middle-men are extremely valuable to the economy, and there's a reason why the first high rise building in any 10%+ annual GDP growth city is almost always a bank.

[wufwugy]

It should be added that restricting supply for profit is absolutely terrible business practice. It does not work. Profits grow so much better by expanding and innovating abundance. This myth of the nefarious billionaire keeping deliciousness from people is just, well, a myth.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's a neat fantasy, but it doesn't actually work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertle...um-production/

edit dammit, I remembered it differently!

[wufwugy]

That doesn't make your point. There's more to the story (as always) and lots more to the economics of it than I understand.

To put it simply, the logic that it's wrong to store a good for benefit means we should also say it's wrong to save or invest. So yeah, if you have any equity in anything and if you don't spend your entire paycheck each week, you're hurting people. The truth is the opposite. Competition of "selfish" behaviors is fantastic for people because it results in more abundance and variety than otherwise.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm glad we could derail this conversation on global warming so far. Thanks for proselytizing.

[CoccoBill]

How are regulations blocking the free market from fixing the climate?

[wufwugy]

There isn't anything to fix. The projected effects are either unknown or not as bad as many say. The doom of climate change loses its appeal when you try to figure out exactly what would happen. Even if government regulators were the answer, they wouldn't be able to fix anything since nobody knows what there is to fix or what would fix that.

The broad answer for how regulators stifle "fixing the climate" is in reducing economic growth. Invention and innovation are the only solutions in the long run. The more economic freedom we have, the more of those we get. As usual, the food industry is a good example. Crops are continually becoming more resilient, more nutritious, and with higher yields because of innovation by companies. In the context of global warming, where arable land would likely decrease, farm innovation is what would keep the denominator growing, as it has been.

Additionally, the wealthier a society, the more resilient and capable of bouncing back from tragedies it is.

Another answer is in the tragedy of the commons like discussed in ocean life. "Common" property is nearly impossible to protect because of how incompatible the "common" interests are. But private property is easy to protect. If we let people just own things, then we'd see far less ecological destruction.

If global warming really is doomsday, the only way we fix it is with technology far beyond what we have today. This means that the goal should be to empower the engine that invents and innovates and creates wealth. Also, I'm not horribly against the government spending on research. However, its role should be exclusively in untapped areas, perhaps like basic research at CERN. But once the market wants to get its hands on a technology and manipulate it for consumer goods, the government needs to let it happen.

[CoccoBill]

^The issue is ending fossil fuel use. We know fairly well what will happen, just not how fast and severe the effects are. We totally have the technology and means to avoid worst case scenarios and make it all manageable, all that's lacking is will.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-here-20150805

[Renton]

How are regulations blocking the free market from fixing the climate?

I think its more like the state itself makes its harder for the free market to address climate change. For example, most world energy is produced by the public sector, and it is a well-known fact that public sector jobs have a lot of inertia. Yes, governments do a lot to subsidize alternate forms of energy but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of energy production is fossil-based and produced by governments. Privatize energy and expect it to get cleaner and more efficient. There's just no reason not to. The private sector is doing a fine job producing all the food we eat, there's no reason it couldn't provide our energy as well. It would be one thing if the state was giving away electricity for free to the poor, but last I checked everybody had to pay his electric bill.

All that said, I think the bigger factor is just the idea of land as a common good. So much of the land on earth is owned by no one in particular. A huge percentage of the oceans is owned by no one in particular. It is very difficult to protect an environment that no one has a vested interest in, particularly when there can be such a profit in trashing it. Obviously the governments of the world could simply start doing a better job curbing pollution, but, to put it scientifically, generally people care better for their own shit than they care for someone else's shit.

[wufwugy]

^The issue is ending fossil fuel use. We know fairly well what will happen, just not how fast and severe the effects are. We totally have the technology and means to avoid worst case scenarios and make it all manageable, all that's lacking is will.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-here-20150805

The claim that we have the capacity to go green within, say, just a few decades, is not factually accurate. The amount of damage we would do to peoples' lives by instituting fully green policies within, say, two decades, would be far greater than the amount of damage from even the worst current projections.

One day we will no longer use fossil fuels. That day will only come after technology is far greater than today. Markets are the only friend to those who think AGW is the most important issue to tackle. I just hope one day they'll realize it.

[CoccoBill]

^You got me, what's more important?

There's a lot of middle ground between fully green in 20y and not doing anything. Cutting emissions by a third in 20y instead of increasing them by the same amount, which is the current rate, might be a nice start.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There are big reasons why green energy isn't as green as we'd like to think.

E.g.
The manufacturing of solar panels, from the mining of the ores all the way to distribution of final product, leaves a huge ecological imprint that is hard to reconcile as a net positive. Much more efficient solar panels could offset this cost to the point of an acceptable compromise, but it's not really on the technological horizon, yet.

I'm not studied in wind turbine technology, but I imagine there are similar problems with manufacturing costs offsetting the "green" advantage of the operating turbine.

Both of these suffer from the cost of scaling. The amount of effort and dedicated land to create enough power to match current demands (much less projected demands) is many times the current system's footprint. The man-hours to maintain the facilities would be much greater, though. There goes the argument about jobs.*

***
I'd wager that it's in the economic interest of energy producers to do so as efficiently as economically possible. I know that Ameren UE (the local electric company in St Louis) has a physics research lab. It is a much sought after job in the field as they are doing real, practical work in pushing the frontier of green energy.

I believe that the people who care about solving the problem are replacing the baby boomers at a rapid rate. The notion that people act without cognizance of the ecological consequences is diminishing.


*I never put much faith in the argument about jobs. It seems to imply that the jobs today are the same jobs there have always been and ever will be. Societies change and the jobs they need change to suit. The transition can be rough on individuals as a society changes, but that is part of progress.

[wufwugy]

^You got me, what's more important?

I think you may have misread me. I said that to environmentalists who think AGW is the most important issue, markets are the most effective tool to fix that issue.

There's a lot of middle ground between fully green in 20y and not doing anything. Cutting emissions by a third in 20y instead of increasing them by the same amount, which is the current rate, might be a nice start.

Markets are how it would happen. No amount of trying to ignore costs will keep fossil fuels in the ground. If some fossil fuels will remain in the ground that would be otherwise cost-effective to extract, it would come only by such incredible innovative production and distribution that a different energy source beats out fossil. So far it's a pipedream to see a world like this in even 50 years. The technology and innovation really is that hard.

Besides, the truth is that we will need geoengineering to fully solve the problem. It's probably a good idea to get started now, to grow as quickly as we can so that when if there ever is a doomsday, we'll actually have the ability to beat it. Half-assed (even full-assed) regulatory attempts to stymie fossil fuel use will just make it harder to fix the problem by decreasing growth in technology, all the while the globe would just get warmer and warmer.

[CoccoBill]

There's a plentiful carbon-free energy source we have available right now, nuclear. Waste management is a bit of an issue but nothing that couldn't be fixed. Too bad it's in the same category as other poorly understood dangerous sounding technologies like GMOs and vaccines. Chernobyl's current death toll estimate is around 35 people (25 plant personnel from the explosion and direct radiation, around 10 due to thyroid cancer). Fukushima's death toll is 0, which if anything is a testament to how safe nuclear is. Huge earthquake and a tsunami hit a poorly managed reactor using antiquated 70s technology, and basically nothing happens.

[wufwugy]

I agree we could expand nuclear a lot. The dent into AGW it would do is relatively small though. It could only beat coal on cost in some parts of the world, it would do nothing to oil (which is the most important fossil fuel), and it would do nothing to livestock.

Probably the biggest dent over this century will be Tesla-style battery/coal/solar for cars and continuing greater efficiency in every industry.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nuclear is hands down the cleanest and safest solution, when measured in potential impact on the environment per kWh produced.

The notion that no one died after Fukushima is misunderstanding the severely long-term effects of radiation poisoning. Increased risk of cancer is the most common result of low to moderate exposure. This is impossible to detect on an individual basis. It's usually found by looking at history and seeing that there were 100 cases of cancer when only 80 were expected. So we can surmise that 20 of the cancers were due to radiation exposure, but we're not sure which of the 100 were the 20.

It is true that the Chernobyl disaster released much more radiological material, and almost entirely into the atmosphere, which carried it across the landscape. The Fukushima disaster released 1/10 as much and mostly into the ground and sea. This isn't great, but much less dangerous than the air.

Even still, my opening statement holds. There are deaths and risks in all power production. The Exxon and BP oil spills have had a huge ecological impact that is hard to compare to radiation exposure. The amount of CO2 spewed into the air as a daily operating procedure by coal plants can't be ignored.

Nuclear is the best power. Nuclear is [insert nationality]! Nuclear is how to win all the things! Go nuclear!