rofflelamowQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Printable View
rofflelamowQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
But the acid rain will just turn them black again.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It is entirely possible that with the advent of biotechnology, you will live to age 150 and beyond, and one day on the news you will see reporting that the majority of the ocean bed is anoxic, all marine life is dead, the anoxia will begin seeping into the atmosphere, and scientists say there is absolutely nothing that can be done, and we better tell our loved ones that we love them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
I wonder how many people will be saying its jaysus com back frum teh hayvens to rapshur his paypel
Peak oil finally getting full front page coverage in UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1766585.html
What's kind of interesting is that I believe that Iraq wells are estimated to be the last ones which are going to peak, and US govt was probably well aware of this in 2002.Quote:
The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.
Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.
Also, it's sorta misleading when the articles says the estimation is that production will peak in ~10 years because peak is/will not be linear, we likely already hit a peak production that we will not go above, but due to oil price spike dropped demand, and the scientist who predicted all this stuff first and accurately predicted US production peak claims that due to price structuring, oil companies will be able to create about a decade long artificial plateau, which I speculate we are currently in
Right, you have a hard time with sarcasm. Let me retry.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But ze acid rain, she will turn ze buildings to ze black agan!
You have a hard time with me knowing it was sarcasm yet not caring cause me r in information mode
lol wuf ftw..
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I still remember people believing oil supplies to be "infinite".
Conlusion: people are unbelievably dumb, and will simply select what to believe at any given point in time, not giving a damn about all the evidence and proof that is brought to the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
mmmm tits..
I read that book by Mackay this weekend, very informative, thanks for posting it. I think a lot of his policy suggestions are questionable because he tends to ignore the question of cost, but he's definitely on the right track by doing an actual cost-benefit analysis, it's kind of sad how rare that is.
Most of the environmental debate is on the level of this editorial from the WSJ yesterday, where they just cite one negative effect of something and throw out some huge-sounding numbers to make it sound really important.
Technologies that automatically reduce emissions (and increase efficiency) are being created every day, with or without help. In 100 years cars will be incredibly cheap, clean, and likely use alternate power sources, like electricity or nuclear power.
Currently the US Navy powers its submarines with a nuclear power pack that requires no maintenance or fuel for 40 years and is the size of a human being.
100 years ago we feared we would run out of hay for horses. Today we worry about fuel for cars. Exactly the same ridiculous fear -- why do we assume that gasoline power and coal power is what we'll use in 100 years?
We don't. The problem is periodic disruption. Imagine there's a massive food shortage, but people are saying it's not a problem because in a year it'll be all fixed. Would you be foolish enough to agree with their logic, or would you realize that due to the periodic disruption of supply, many people are going to die from starvation? AGW and peak oil are issues because their disruption capacity are immense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
Also, many of us, and me specifically, are not talking about the future of tech. Like I linked before, it's analogous to WWII. The Nazis claimed that their wunderwaffe (wonder weapons) were going to win the war for them. While the wunderwaffe would have won the war, they were too advanced and not scalable at the time they needed them, and they lost the war. The fact that German wunderwaffe technology and predictions played major roles in the development of weapons in the decades following has no bearing on the fact that they were unable to help the Germans when they most needed them. AGW and peak oil are the exact same. While a hundred years from now we'll have amazing tech and possibly to a large scale, that will be long after shit hits the fan and the climate gets screwed from warming and economies fail from fuel prices
Oil is running out, and very quickly. In fact it's running out WAY faster than the human brain is meant to perceive. Fast forward to 3:25, a professor explains why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw...eature=channel
We'll not use it all due to extraction expense because after we begin falling from peak we'll experience exponential decrease in consumption, prices will skyrocket, and economies will see disruption on scales that pale the Great Depression
This all, however, can be avoided by scaling renewables before oil gets too expensive. We can also avoid climate catastrophe as well by changing energy sources quickly enough (actually, no matter what we're already stuck with relatively 'small' catastrophe, what we want is to avoid more than that). The frightening thing is that scientists are not telling us that we are actually on course to do that. They're telling us it's possible, but that we're treading ahead a full speed into calamity. In fact, it's so bad that every year or so panels like the IPCC come out saying that the previous worst case scenario now looks like it's the most likely scenario. And on top of that, a huge number of known largely deleterious factors have not yet been factored in to any models simply because they are not understood enough to have a small enough margin of error.
One of these factors is methane seeping out of permafrost. It is currently happening, scientists believe that it's happening more quickly now due to climate, and they all say that if they're correct then it's the most frightening aspect of AGW since emissions to date pale in comparison to what would happen if there is a triggered feedback loop of melting permafrost (which may have already happened)
As a note on feedback loops: this is the story of climate change throughout geologic history. Many times in the past, long before hominids were around, conditions triggered a certain positive feedback loop, and that loop then changed the entire climate. This is standard geology and evolution. Feedback loops are how we even got an oxygen rich atmosphere 2.5 billion years ago thus making the earth hospitable to complex life
This is some scary shit. What time is it now?
I totally get this mentality. It's just that its like a level-1 bullshit detector. Like the first sniff of global warming sets off bs alarms but I dont think its fair to anyone to assume that once you can say "LOL SCIENTISTS SAID ICE AGE IN THE 80s" that negates everything else. Because my level-2 bullshit detector says that detractors of global warming have a vested interested financially in smothering these flames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
Since that aspect of the video was primarily about exponential growth, we can't precisely analogize his paradigm to our current scenario. This is because when we begin to drop from peak we will see exponential deletion, not growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvSame
As far as strictly how many reserves we have, I speculate that it is now 11:59 with a doubling time of something between 1-3 decades. I honestly do not know what our doubling time is right now because growth has slowed, but it's definitely not really long. But that doesn't even matter because the problem isn't running out of oil altogether, but running out of cheap oil. We can't actually know until we're past it, but we're likely at plateau of cheap oil currently, and it will only be downhill after the plateau. We will possibly see a small spike after the recession back up to pre-recession production levels, but it won't get much higher than that, and then it's only a matter of time.
I can't predict what it will be like though. It's possible that we could see another 2-3 decades of pseudo-plateau. I don't know the current doubling time, we haven't gotten into unconventional fuels or coal to liquid fuels, and there's a lot of those, but none of that voids the fact that we're on the last straw of doubling time
And actually, the sooner oil production drops the better. Unconventional fossil fuels are super dirty, and if we did into them we'll just be pushing AGW like 2-3x faster than ever before.
I think this needs to be crossposted here, since people who disagree with global warming typically don't watch documentaries. That's a fact, look it up.
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...70.html#939670
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...I5MGY4ZWI5OWM=
Is this true? I know National Review is a pretty partisan publication so I'm taking what they say with a grain of salt, but wow that would be pretty embarrassing if it's true.
In the last few paragraphs you see that the author jumps to conclusions. He sees one ambiguous explanation, assumes why, then ends on the note that these questions need to be answered. He is also a conflict of interest (fellow at Cato Institute), and is criticized about publishing very little scientific literature, and instead sticking with the popular mediaQuote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
This is really the only part of the article that means anything. The rest is the author saying stuff
As to exactly what this means, I don't know. It could be completely legitimate protocol, for all I know. What I do know is that fraud in science is retarded since it's one of the last things you'll get away with, if the author's conjecture is true then it's extremely likely the story will get much more action in reputable sources, and even if the conjecture is true, it doesn't cast any doubt on global warming because it's only one marginal piece of the entire picture. For example: biologists wouldn't think much any differently about evolution if we'd never discovered AustralopithecusQuote:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Also, like you said, the publication is partisan. That alone is reason enough to disregard everything they have to say unless independently and adequately verified
Isnt this just the same old political tactic that so frustrates people who want answers without all the bs.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They're muddying the waters hoping that people just throw their hands in the air, as frustrated as they are lost. Good thing the author is around to then grab your hand and guide you to his ideology.
I like this idea. It's a ridiculous fear since it's a problem someone else will solve. It's crazy to worry about my house burning down, the fire department'll put the fire out. In 100 years, I bet we'll have invented past our need for stuff that burns!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
That's a double response to 1 post, Lyric. I bet you won't read either of them.
ya, like wuf said, even if this is true, what does it change? If the poles arent hotter, then why are they melting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This isn't a marginal piece of evidence, it's the primary study that's been used by the IPCC to construct historical temperature comparisons. It would be a big blow if graphs like the ones you posted earlier turned out to be unverifiable or fraudulent.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/20...g.final_sm.jpg
Global warming is most likely still a reality because we do have reliable data that show the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has gone up and in theory that should raise temperatures. But climate science is so hard to model that without solid data showing actual long-term temperature increases it would be harder to convince society of the necessity of major policy changes that will hurt the economy. I think it's silly to compare it to Australopithecus.
Of course.Quote:
Also, like you said, the publication is partisan. That alone is reason enough to disregard everything they have to say unless independently and adequately verified
The problem is that it doesn't appear that the 'issue' is one of fraud or antipodal data or even incorrect data, but of no longer having the raw data from which the quality-controlled data was gathered. The data is still legit, it's just not known exactly the origins of each factor in creating the data due to eliminating the raw numbers. This could be something as trivial as adding a bunch of numbers together, but instead of using the specific decimal numbers you round each figure up or down. The end results would still be the same, but you would no longer have the exact originals of each individual number.
^^ This is a key statement. Just because they discarded the originals doesn't mean that they made stuff up. The adjusted data would most definitely still reflect the raw data. In fact, the adjusted, quality-controlled data is probably the kind of data that everybody uses to explain anything about climate.Quote:
we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues
Not to mention that this is from a partisan popular publication. If it gets no action in peer-reviewed journals it's worthless.
On top of that, the article doesn't give exact dates, but implies that this supposed issue took place in a finite area for a finite time period on a finite issue. This is why I mentioned Australopithecus. If we found that 5 years of climate data were completely fraudulent, it wouldn't really change anything because the other 99% of data wasn't shown to be fraudulent and the theory still fit.
But really, popular media says anything and everything at some point in time. This source is without merit. The 'problem' even seems to be completely fabricated. If I was a professional scientist I could probably very easily explain why quality-controlled, homogenized, adjusted over an entire series of collections data is completely standard. When the qualified scientific community says one thing and the unqualified out of work scientist, an economist, and a mathematician say another, I'm gonna just go ahead and stick with the former. If this article was talking about a bunch of skeptical geophysicists instead of entirely irrelevant individuals, it would have a starting point
Finally they're coming out with more realistic estimates (4C warming by 2070)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm
Still an underestimate IMO, either way it's terribad. And it's lolbad that govts are still yammering about keeping below 2C. It's this stupid denialism and catering to ignorance that determines that we will cruise beyond that target no sweat
Looks like when we look back, approximately 2007 will be the time that we determine that the worst of all feedback loops was triggered IMO
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...25_arctic.html
Can't wait until they begin to actually model this and factor it into estimates. And now that we're in el nino in the record breaking oceanic temperature year...Quote:
Unusually high temperatures in the Arctic and heavy rains in the tropics likely drove a global increase in atmospheric methane in 2007 and 2008 after a decade of near-zero growth, according to a new study.
I was reading 2+2 earlier (Science, Math, and Philosophy) and came across a topic dealing with nanotechnology. I got sidetracked a bit, as usual, and found a good read:
How nanotechnology could be used in the future (or now) to help with the global warming problem: http://www.qsinano.com/pdf/ForbesWol...t_July2006.pdf
That's cool. Tech is infant though, but cool nonetheless
And I look forward to the day that rhetoric actually matches reality. Like everybody's all about reducing emissions, but reality is that's not gonna do shit. It's possible that emissions could be eliminated overnight, yet the earth would continue warming to catastrophic temperatures due to natural lengthy heating and feedback of GHG
I started this thread claiming the only hope will ultimately boil down to artificial trees, but I take that back. I now suspect that it will be about artificial oceanic 'trees', not atmospheric ones. The story of climate change is all about the oceans, and things are looking really bad for them. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are said to be in runaway melt mode due to ocean temp, and the most recent estimates I've seen is that the Arctic will be acidic by 2020, and the entire ocean by 2100. This is the worst news I've seen so far
IMO, if we're gonna fix the situation, it will either boil down to some unknown natural barrier which will stop warming before mass extinction is triggered (very doubtful), or we're gonna have to mass manufacture GHG capture and sequester machines straight from the oceans and atmosphere. And we don't currently have the tech to do this. In fact, we're not even close to tech for the oceans AFAIK
I dunno why, but I love me a good doomsday scenario. I really hope the human race gets its act together, but I very much doubt it will happen in time
Here's a pretty great blog post from climateprogress with a whole bunch of predictions on peak oil
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/0...hat-will-very/
Hey guys after a pretty long hiatus from posting much on FTR I logged in and saw this thread and was overcome with the retardation of people who actually believe that human caused global warming is an actual threat to the world.
Co2 levels historically go up after temperature rises. So temperature increases cause Co2 to rise not vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
oh sweet, an intelligent man of the opposite opinion. This should get good.
Rilla how you been? You graduate from Va Tech yet?
undergrad I did, what have you been up do?
In last year of undergrad, just took the LSAT few weekends ago so going to law school after this year. Other than that just playing poker and living life.
It's not like it's some kind of secret that the vast majority disagrees with science
Science either is or isn't, faith/religion on the other hand........
Whoa this is pretty much the worst news I've read on the subject since I first started reading.
Just published in the online edition of Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296
And their press releaseQuote:
The CO2 content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 ppmv over the last 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, pCO2 is much less certain and the relationship between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the last 20 million years (myr). During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3 to 6°C warmer and sea level 25 to 40 meters higher than present, pCO2 was similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago; Ma) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to -2.4 Ma).
http://www.climate.ucla.edu/news/art...?parentid=4676
Quote:
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
Quote:
"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.
Quote:
Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide, Tripati said. Such levels may have been reached on Earth 50 million years ago or earlier
These projections actually make an even worse prediction that the ones I've been making, and mine have been very dire.
It makes complete sense though. Fossil fuels are a very gradual collection of carbon normally sequestered into living beings which were never really atmospheric except maybe when the Earth was very young, and when we burn them, we release all this 'unnatural' material into the atmosphere all at once.
For a while, I've speculated that Fermi's Paradox (basically the question of why we don't see extraterrestrial beings anywhere) is because all species of advanced intelligence did the same thing we're doing, and thus cooked themselves to death, and so there really never has been chance for super advanced societies in the first place. It's actually a rather plausible scenario since planets with advanced species would also very likely have loads of fossil fuels, and they would very likely get discovered, and they would very likely get exploited, etc...
Anyways, this is the first bit of material I've seen that puts a very strong case for AGW taking us further than we ever imagined
weeeeeee no more winter! I hate the fucking winter!
Arctic almost out of multiyear ice. Predictions that Arctic Summer will be ice free sometime between 2020-2030
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/0...-david-barber/
Meanwhile, everything being done about AGW so far by those with the power is equivalent to bringing a potato gun to a howitzer fight. You heard it here first, we will not see the dramatic "WWII" policy changes needed until several decades from now when a coalition of maybe a dozen or so modern countries declare carbon emissions illegal, and place gigantic embargoes on trade with non-complying countries, thus provoking either the next great war or the beginning of the real green revolution
Before then, it'll just be nothing but small tidbits here and there, the massive third-world picking up a wee bit of pace with the first-world thus neutralizing any effort to the contrary, and the myopic retards who let other myopic billionaire entities continue to own policy, and the fear of any kind of economic burden entirely canceling out meaningful change. Maybe all the coral reefs or the majority of fisheries drying up in mid-century will provoke change, but I doubt it. The Crisis of 08 was a huge fucking deal, but it wasn't big enough to provide anything other than the banks tightening their stranglehold on the economy.
Click for super cool interactive photo presenting Mt. Everest glacial melt from 1921 to 2007
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/2...lobal-warming/
found this on facebook posted by lyric, may have been from this thread?
Anyways some interesting shit http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...nts-and-emails
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/Quote:
Originally Posted by Massimo
He defends them pretty well actually. But 1) i guarantee no email was edited 2) they talk about changing research as if they do it all the time, that's a big WTF.
The important bit, however, is not clear from the quotes (I haven't read the original documents), that is, how were they changed. I'm not a scientist but I know enough about basic data and statistical analysis to know that it's hardly an exact unambiguous science. By tweaking some parameters with a massive data set you can get pretty much any kind of results you want. If the changes have been made to produce completely false results or to hide relevant "inconvenient" results, this is obviously a big deal and should be thoroughly investigated and the persons involved punished. Far more likely IMO is that they create model after model until they find one that supports observed conditions. Some changes are business as usual everyday stuff, some are highly unethical or even illegal. With a couple lines of text taken out of context is difficult to judge what's actually been going on, provided that the emails are authentic in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Massimo
Even if this were the case and results have been mangled in questionable ways, it is still important to keep perspective. It does not mean that all scientists and every study ever made about climate change is false or fraudulent, it just shows that even scientist are people and may do morally questionable acts, for whatever reasons. Think about the alternative for a moment. All (well, 95+%) climate scientists in the world are conspiring together to convince everyone of a climate change they know isn't happening. Really? For what purpose, some extra research grants? They're all dumb enough not to realize they would get caught and lose their jobs and credibility? If you believe this, and don't believe that the opposition (big oil etc) does not have a greater vested interest, I don't know what to say.
I'm hoping this is a level, but just in case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzzard
Yes, humans did not contribute much to the climate in the past few hundred million years, just for the past hundred or so years. Yes, the climate used to be much warmer and there used to be much more CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you also know, that e.g. during most of the mesozoic period, sea levels were about 200 meters (650 feet) higher than now? Or that seasons or permanent ice did not exist anywhere on the planet? Or that for example oxygen levels were roughly 60-75% of the current levels? Might also be worth noting that while average surface air temperatures were about 10C higher than now, equatorial ocean waters were too warm to harbor any sea life, and all land not directly connected to the sea would have been deserts. Yes, there was life on the planet during those times, but no humans, or pretty much any other lifeforms found on the planet today.
The death of billions of humans would be good for the long term longevity of the human race. If it gets too hot, it gets too hot, there's fuck all we can do.
In a pure historical sense, the temperature and CO2 is at one of it's low levels. And no, I'm not talking in thousands/hundreds or years but rather millions.
Shit happens, we might not be able to survive - if it gets 'too hot'. But having 6billion+ on the earth probably doesnt help things.
All I'm reading is that regardless of the problem, the solution starts with removing Muzzard.
I'm tired so I'll try to keep this short
- 'Changing' data is standard in all science. The issue is that unqualified people who don't understand the scientific process or language provide critique about said science. An example can be found in laypeople claiming that 'evolution is just a theory'. Well, colloquially, theories have an entirely different meaning than scientifically. An example of 'changing' data without doing so incorrectly is in the thing that mcat posted a couple months back. Upon even further review, I think the specific process is called 'smoothing', and it's completely standard. But don't tell that to people unqualified to provide an opinion because they shall still provide their unqualified opinion
- As for Muzz's graph, I'm not sure what he's trying to say with it. In fact, I'm not sure he knows what he's trying to say with it. Why? Because geophysicists aren't even sure about what it says. They're not even sure that our ability to detect CO2 PPM in the geologic records holds accurate above a certain level (which is found in that graph). Usually that graph is used by the uneducated to show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temp, but that ignores basic physics and that when ALL the data is presented (without cherry picking like deniers are incapable of not doing) it clearly illustrates that there is an incredible correlation with CO2 and temp
Here's a video explaining
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
http://imgur.com/O4uPP.jpg
+ now we have fuck all land to fit 6-7billion heads on with the icecaps melted :-s
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 explainQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
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.
moar aids then!
Finally, someone is making some damn sense!Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzzard
http://www.physorg.com/print178178343.html
Quote:
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.
Well, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhQuote:
Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
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
*sigh*.. its been posted before, and its been refuted as nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzzard
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
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
I like how this guy puts it:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886
Like omg, we have an unanswered comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeaces86
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...-not-leads.php
great linkQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
This is also a good read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...risis-response
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
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
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.Quote:
But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda
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.
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 understandingQuote:
Originally Posted by 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,
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.Quote:
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!
This is a really good argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.
Let's look at the whole snippet with the aforementioned quote in the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
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.Quote:
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.
Yeah that does appear to be a damning statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
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
Headshot!Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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?'
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Give it 6 months and things'll cool down, just you wait and see.
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
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.
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
0% chance on what time scale?
Hi, I'm 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
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 zeroQuote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
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
Peak oil to the rescue.
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
Worldwide famine to the rescue first.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
They mocked Soylent Green. They were wrong to do so.
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
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.
The costs of stopping anthropogenic global warming are far higher than the costs of not.
Yeah, but it's still moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Who cares about Florida anyway?