12-11-2016 10:33 AM
#1
| |
|
Is Global Warming a Hoax? |
12-11-2016 10:53 AM
#2
| |
|
Anything that starts off with arbitrarily defining a time period with no explanation except saying "reasonable" isn't worth watching. |
12-11-2016 11:00 AM
#3
| |
|
Regardless of what one thinks about it, making a claim one way or the other appears to be statistically very not rigorous and not robust. |
12-11-2016 01:09 PM
#4
| |
I wonder what they made thermometers from in Jesus days. | |
| |
12-11-2016 01:35 PM
#5
| |
Inb4 wuf starts preaching creationism. | |
| |
12-11-2016 01:40 PM
#6
| |
This graph starts at an arbitrary point... | |
12-11-2016 01:45 PM
#7
| |
|
I taught ur mom creationism. |
12-11-2016 02:07 PM
#8
| |
So if we replace oil with, say, cold fusion, then either one of the following things can happen (but not both)... | |
| |
12-11-2016 02:13 PM
#9
| |
I would expect humans to cause an increase in global temperature. Not just because of the burning of fossil fuels, I'd have thought the prime problem is cutting down those things that breathe in CO2. | |
| |
12-11-2016 02:18 PM
#10
| |
12-11-2016 02:21 PM
#11
| |
12-11-2016 03:52 PM
#12
| |
uum I don't think so. Practically zero multiplied by millions is a lot more than practially zero. Multiplied by billions and we're comfortably out of "negligible" territory. And, if you feel this way, that we as individuals cannot do any harm to the planet by warming our houses up, then I don't see how you can so easily subscribe to the idea that we're fucking things up by burning coal and oil. It's contradictory. | |
| |
12-11-2016 04:04 PM
#13
| |
I think you misunderstand the hypothesized causes of man-made global warming. It's not from the heat caused by burning things. It's from the emissions from said combustion, like CO2, which lead to the trapping of solar radiation. | |
12-11-2016 06:17 PM
#14
| |
| |
| |
12-11-2016 09:12 PM
#15
| |
|
I can't imagine 7 billion heaters run 24/7 would be enough to raise global temperature by .1% |
12-11-2016 09:28 PM
#16
| |
12-11-2016 09:37 PM
#17
| |
| |
12-12-2016 07:06 AM
#18
| |
I'm on the side of the environmentalists on this one, and here's why. | |
| |
12-12-2016 07:47 AM
#19
| |
Halving the global population over time would be a great idea, but it's poor economics. That's half the slave taxpayers to prop up the system. It's also half the consumers to buy shit we don't need. It also means less war (less territory and resource competition), and we all know that war is big business. | |
| |
12-12-2016 07:51 AM
#20
| |
| |
12-12-2016 08:29 AM
#21
| |
So the latest claim is that glaciers on Antarctica are melting. Oh dear. | |
| |
12-12-2016 03:08 PM
#22
| |
Take a deep breath, wuf... I'm about to use a metaphor and some basic economics to 'splain this to you. | |
12-12-2016 03:13 PM
#23
| |
Explain to me again how the rising land mass is somehow displacing less water than before? | |
12-12-2016 03:26 PM
#24
| |
It's not really about creating heat and contributing to global temperature. It's about creating a layer of atmosphere which reacts in a chemical way as a thermal barrier at the top of the atmosphere. It's not about creating more heat so much as it's about letting the created heat escape. (I can't remember the details as to why it isn't a moot point, i.e. it blocks incoming heat as well as outgoing heat, so I don't see why the net would be warming if it's blocking sunlight from entering. I'd bet monies that this is well understood by climate scientists, though.) | |
12-12-2016 05:52 PM
#25
| |
|
ironic Ong arguing for changes to moderate global warming with all those lights and heaters used to grow weed dissipating heat into the environament , not to mention actually setting fire to the wed and generating even more heat to release into the environment. |
12-12-2016 06:02 PM
#26
| |
Not to mention the ten cups of tea he drinks a day. In fact, I bet if you go in Ong's back garden right now it's two degrees warmer than everyone else's. | |
12-12-2016 06:46 PM
#27
| |
| |
12-12-2016 06:48 PM
#28
| |
Haha mojo's response is how I like to be slapped down. Science, bitch. | |
| |
12-18-2016 10:38 AM
#29
| |
This is not the case. Governments in general have been extremely reluctant to impose regulations on commerce. Like MMM said for one government to go fully clean will put it at a disadvantage compared to everyone else. | |
| |
12-18-2016 11:49 AM
#30
| |
They should tax us for breathing. | |
| |
12-18-2016 03:42 PM
#31
| |
Yes, it's real. | |
| |
12-18-2016 03:44 PM
#32
| |
Don't listen to Dilbert-guy. He ran some blog recently about how scientists *have* to believe in global warming, that climate science wasn't like regular science, where you can triumph through the strength of your ideas, and if you don't go with the flow, you'll be out of the field. | |
| |
12-18-2016 03:48 PM
#33
| |
| |
12-18-2016 04:01 PM
#34
| |
In an earlier post, I said I don't know why the blanketing effect of greenhouse gas accumulation in the upper atmosphere didn't have the same tendency to cool the Earth by blocking incoming sunlight as it has to warm the Earth by blocking escaping light. | |
12-18-2016 08:05 PM
#35
| |
| |
| |
12-19-2016 06:38 PM
#36
| |
|
I haven't been reading Dilbert's opinions on climate. If what you say he says is what he says, he's not wrong. Academia is full of its religions and global warming is one of them. Academics are supposed to follow the evidence where ever it leads and to view evidence with little bias, but that's not entirely what happens these days. Scientists have come nowhere close to demonstrating anthropogenic global warming with severe consequences, yet if you wanna get places as an academic, you'd best act like they have. |
12-20-2016 11:21 AM
#37
| |
Pedantically, yes, I agree. | |
12-20-2016 11:30 AM
#38
| |
This is not false only because the phrase "nowhere close" and the word "severe" are ambiguous. | |
12-20-2016 01:42 PM
#39
| |
|
I'm suggesting that there is a zeitgeist in academia (as there is everywhere) and that when things are open to interpretation, the opinion of scientists converge towards certain sets of opinions. |
12-20-2016 02:00 PM
#40
| |
That's a lot of words for a non-sequitur. | |
12-20-2016 02:20 PM
#41
| |
| |
| |
12-20-2016 03:52 PM
#42
| |
I can only speak for my own sub-field in psychology here, but there's certainly no such thing as a dogma view you have to adopt to make it. In fact, I first made my name (fwiw) by challenging one of the more popular theories in my area. This is certainly looked on favorably compared to just repeating everyone else's ideas. | |
12-20-2016 04:27 PM
#43
| |
| |
12-20-2016 04:36 PM
#44
| |
|
I'm responding to this idea exclusively. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 12-20-2016 at 04:51 PM. | |
12-20-2016 04:40 PM
#45
| |
Sorry I misunderstood, then. | |
12-20-2016 04:47 PM
#46
| |
| |
12-20-2016 05:02 PM
#47
| |
There are a whole lot of things Summers did that got him the axe; it's unclear how much the comment on female aptitudes had to do with it, if anything. | |
12-20-2016 05:35 PM
#48
| |
It doesn't take a climate scientist to acknowledge that greenhouse gasses are emitted on the planet due to human activity. | |
12-20-2016 05:44 PM
#49
| |
It's a good question. | |
12-20-2016 05:44 PM
#50
| |
| |
| |
12-20-2016 05:47 PM
#51
| |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-20-2016 at 05:52 PM. | |
12-20-2016 05:51 PM
#52
| |
Not gonna lie. I've spent a few minutes trying to find good numbers and google isn't as awesome as it usually is. | |
12-20-2016 06:11 PM
#53
| |
|
The geophysics on what happens with carbon is persuasive and it's ultimately the reason why I tend to side with the idea that AGW is probably a thing. But the idea that the climate is warming because of human emissions has not been rigorously shown AFAIK. Part of why I started this thread is because inferring that humans are causing global warming from the available statistics doesn't strike me as sound. |
12-20-2016 06:17 PM
#54
| |
| |
12-20-2016 06:21 PM
#55
| |
| |
| |
12-20-2016 06:22 PM
#56
| |
|
What graph? |
12-20-2016 06:47 PM
#57
| |
Don't know, but it can't be based solely on the numbers in the graph. I'm pretty sure the more serious ones recognized that a long time ago. | |
12-21-2016 06:28 PM
#58
| |
| |
| |
12-21-2016 06:41 PM
#59
| |
|
Without going into specifics (to save from getting bogged down), the broad criticism is that the evidence presented isn't actually distinguished from randomness. I get that it looks like humans are causing warming given the subsets of data/time periods we're looking at. But the conclusion reached appears to be shaky due to evidence of confounding variables that we haven't yet identified. Using the frame in the OP, how do we justify a very small blip in recent history as caused by something we know about when there were much larger blips in not-too-distant history caused by things we don't know about? |
12-21-2016 10:44 PM
#60
| |
12-21-2016 11:38 PM
#61
| |
The assumption your argument makes is that given our current abilities to observe and understand, we wouldn't have understood the causes of these past blips if they were contemporary. Climate scientists are essentially assuming that there is a high enough probability that the events that caused these blips are being shrouded by time, not our abilities to observe and understand. Couple that with the correlation between the industrial age and the blip-- and, well, you know my friend Occam.. | |
12-22-2016 12:06 AM
#62
| |
|
That is an astute assessment of the way I worded it. Allow me to clarify what I meant. |
12-22-2016 04:51 AM
#63
| |
12-22-2016 04:58 AM
#64
| |
12-22-2016 12:50 PM
#65
| |
| |
12-22-2016 12:58 PM
#66
| |
12-22-2016 01:15 PM
#67
| |
All of this was addressed in the video. | |
Last edited by CoccoBill; 12-22-2016 at 01:18 PM.
| |
12-22-2016 01:17 PM
#68
| |
| |
12-22-2016 03:29 PM
#69
| |
|
I watch everything I respond to. Often multiple times. I've seen all this stuff before too and used to be pretty big into it. |
12-22-2016 03:36 PM
#70
| |
|
Allow me to add clarification: so far you both have acknowledged that it has not been demonstrated that humans are causing warming. Yet the arguments being made are more or less *wink wink here's why we can tell humans are causing warming*. |
12-22-2016 04:03 PM
#71
| |
| |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-22-2016 at 04:20 PM. | |
12-22-2016 04:11 PM
#72
| |
Of the climatologists who have an opinion, 98% believe in AGW and 2% don't. The fact that some climatologists haven't yet formed their opinion is due to the fact that different people have different levels of evidence they need in order to form an opinion. Moreover, some people will weigh certain evidence more heavily than others will. | |
12-22-2016 04:59 PM
#73
| |
|
Even though I really do think AGW is real, I would not be surprised if the probability it's not is >20%. |
12-22-2016 05:57 PM
#74
| |
They have, with enough credibility that 98% of them agree. What's happening isn't within the boundaries of normal variations that can be expected, the change is in the "wrong" direction, nothing else we know about stuff that changes the climate can explain it (sunspots, volcanoes etc) and the empirical evidence we have fit the theories of AGW perfectly. It's as much of a smoking gun as there can be. Surely it can also just be martians farting, but that isn't science. | |
| |
12-22-2016 06:20 PM
#75
| |
| |