If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Post)   The Arctic Meltdown: Climate change has enabled companies like Shell to pursue previously inaccessible resources   (globalpost.com) divider line 206
    More: Interesting, Arctic Meltdown, Arctic, Eskimos, Royal Dutch Shell plc, trillion cubic feet, environmental organization, bowhead whales, environmental organizations  
•       •       •

3980 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2012 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 02:00:00 PM

Joe Blowme: make me some tea: Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs

It has happened in the past plenty of times, but never before in the course of 200 years. Data from Antarctic/Arctic ice cores shows that changes take thousands of years naturally.

So we had an ice age 200 years ago? WTF?


The Little Ice Age. You might have heard of it, it was all the fashion. Times change, and now everyone's all warm and in short-shorts.
 
2012-10-04 02:01:13 PM

Abuse Liability: If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat.


As a physicist, I have a different opinion of predictive models.

We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change.

This is a red herring. "We" don't claim to have a "complete" understanding of climate change, and we don't need to in order to usefully constrain a range of possible outcomes. For example, our physical understanding of the climate system and its key uncertainties leads to a prediction of about 2 to 4 C of warming per doubling of CO2. This is a fairly wide range of uncertainty (~50%), but it's not 0, and it's not 10, and that's useful for planning for what will come.

Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models.

If by "wreak havoc" you mean "are already included in", uh sure.

For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life.

Yes, and this is known and already studied along with many other feedbacks on the Earth system. Even if you take outside estimates, it changes some of the numbers, but doesn't dramatically change the range of outcomes, nor the conclusion that humans are already outweighing natural variability and will only increase this disparity in the future.
 
2012-10-04 02:02:11 PM

gulogulo: Abuse Liability: If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat. We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change. Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models. For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life. I have no problem with the hypothesis that man contributes to climate change. I take issue with the fact that so many people seem to "know" how large of an effect we produce. Especially because any interest group be it church, climate change enthusiasts, government or even scientists (that want to get their research funded), all have a financial stake in the outcome and will ride this rollercoaster into the ground

What kind of biology do you do? I'm surprised you'd bring out the 'scientists do it for the money.' Sure, there are some, but the majority I know are not such 'one-trick-ponies.'


I have a graduate degree in Physics. I spent lots of time around research scientists. They most definitely do it for the money, they have mortgages to pay and children to feed and desire for a nice retirement just like anyone else. This is not to say they are somehow more "evil" than the rest of us, hardly. But they are subject to the same winds of change when funding sources move around and change focus.

Don't kid yourself, Scientists are always modifying their proposals to try to win the grant money, if that means tying in their research with the focus that federal grant money has at the time, so be it.
 
2012-10-04 02:02:58 PM

Ambitwistor: As a physicist, I have a different opinion of predictive models.


As a biologist (more specifically, spatial biologist, usually at the landscape scale) so do I!
 
2012-10-04 02:04:00 PM

WelldeadLink: and now everyone's all warm and in short-shorts.


Skimpy clothes? All in favor say 'aye'

No, not you, Rosie O'Donnell
 
2012-10-04 02:04:31 PM

WizardofToast: Okay, say climate change is fake and whatever...what the fark do we do when we run OUT of oil?


Apparently, that problem has just been postponed a generation or two, unfortunately. Which would mean the incentive for a solution goes down, while the problem gets that much harder to solve and its effects more severe. But when have people ever cared about how their actions affect the world 100 years later?

That crap doesn't grow on trees.

*snicker*
 
2012-10-04 02:05:36 PM

Big Man On Campus: I have a graduate degree in Physics. I spent lots of time around research scientists. They most definitely do it for the money, they have mortgages to pay and children to feed and desire for a nice retirement just like anyone else. This is not to say they are somehow more "evil" than the rest of us, hardly. But they are subject to the same winds of change when funding sources move around and change focus.

Don't kid yourself, Scientists are always modifying their proposals to try to win the grant money, if that means tying in their research with the focus that federal grant money has at the time, so be it.



What a coincidence, I have a graduate degree in biology, and work on climate change problems. But I don't need climate change in order to get funding. At the moment, it is the question of interest, but that changes with time. Of course I need money to survive (watchout, I'm living fat off of
 
2012-10-04 02:06:36 PM

WelldeadLink: Joe Blowme: make me some tea: Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs

It has happened in the past plenty of times, but never before in the course of 200 years. Data from Antarctic/Arctic ice cores shows that changes take thousands of years naturally.

So we had an ice age 200 years ago? WTF?

The Little Ice Age. You might have heard of it, it was all the fashion. Times change, and now everyone's all warm and in short-shorts.


The little ice age was in the early 1800? WOW, the more you know.
 
2012-10-04 02:06:37 PM
Nothing to see here. This year's ice melt is perfectly normal . . .
nsidc.org
 
2012-10-04 02:06:39 PM

gulogulo: What a coincidence, I have a graduate degree in biology, and work on climate change problems. But I don't need climate change in order to get funding. At the moment, it is the question of interest, but that changes with time. Of course I need money to survive (watchout, I'm living fat off of




What a coincidence, I have a graduate degree in biology, and work on climate change problems. But I don't need climate change in order to get funding. At the moment, it is the question of interest, but that changes with time. Of course I need money to survive (watchout, I'm living fat off of less than 40k a year!), but to imply that it has any bearing on the results is pretty fallacious. Sure, there are some crooked scientists out there, but they are by far in the minority.
 
2012-10-04 02:06:45 PM

gulogulo: Abuse Liability: If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat. We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change. Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models. For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life. I have no problem with the hypothesis that man contributes to climate change. I take issue with the fact that so many people seem to "know" how large of an effect we produce. Especially because any interest group be it church, climate change enthusiasts, government or even scientists (that want to get their research funded), all have a financial stake in the outcome and will ride this rollercoaster into the ground

What kind of biology do you do? I'm surprised you'd bring out the 'scientists do it for the money.' Sure, there are some, but the majority I know are not such 'one-trick-ponies.'


That's so much horse shiat. Funding is so tight right now, you write grants on what people will pay for, not what you're interested in doing (most scientists I know have an ear at NIH and will regularly look out for 'pet projects' they're interested in funding). Ask any real scientist. As a post-doc I'm constantly pressured to mine for data that agrees with our hypothesis but actively try and disprove anything that would invalidate it. Often times those are the best experiments because they end up showing how flawed we were to begin with. I suppose it may just be this institution that is so adamant about it, but Vanderbilt is invested in producing synthetic compounds (like a drug company), so we're probably have more reason to pursue financial gains than acadamians (but not by much).
 
2012-10-04 02:08:51 PM

Abuse Liability: As a post-doc I'm constantly pressured to mine for data that agrees with our hypothesis but actively try and disprove anything that would invalidate it


That's bad science. Why are you doing that? And you are in a for-profit sort of science. Mine is not. There won't be any patents coming from my models.
 
2012-10-04 02:09:50 PM

Superrad: I'm sorry, there can be no upside to global climate change. It can only be bad, all the time.


Doubtful that anyone believed that coming out of the last Ice Age.

/the era, not the movie.
 
2012-10-04 02:10:05 PM
Big Man On Campus: God farking damnit. I fail at posting. That's what I get for multi-tasking. My FULL response (to myself apparently), is up a few.
 
2012-10-04 02:10:31 PM

Abuse Liability: jake_lex: FishyFred: But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.

That's why they're trying to change the narrative from "Global warming isn't real" to "Global warming is real, but it's a natural cycle." It's hard to totally deny it now, but if things are going to be OK anyway, then why not drill that oil?

Weather/climate change is cyclical. I think the argument was and will continue to be exactly how big a role our carbon emissions play in the grand scheme of things. Its not a simple formula either as several interconnected factors contribute to global warming. Personally, I drive a hybrid because I like the environment and hate gas prices. I don't know how big of an impact that will make, nor do I care.


lolwut
www.greenfudge.org
 
2012-10-04 02:10:37 PM

Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat.

As a physicist, I have a different opinion of predictive models.

We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change.

This is a red herring. "We" don't claim to have a "complete" understanding of climate change, and we don't need to in order to usefully constrain a range of possible outcomes. For example, our physical understanding of the climate system and its key uncertainties leads to a prediction of about 2 to 4 C of warming per doubling of CO2. This is a fairly wide range of uncertainty (~50%), but it's not 0, and it's not 10, and that's useful for planning for what will come.

Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models.

If by "wreak havoc" you mean "are already included in", uh sure.

For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life.

Yes, and this is known and already studied along with many other feedbacks on the Earth system. Even if you take outside estimates, it changes some of the numbers, but doesn't dramatically change the range of outcomes, nor the conclusion that humans are already outweighing natural variability and will only increase this disparity in the future.


How about this, we'll both hang out for about 30 years and you win if the world descends into the 'obvious' hellhole that has been predicted.
 
2012-10-04 02:12:31 PM
4.54 billion years old, yet some proclaim to know exactly how it works.

Why does warm water freeze faster than cool water? No farking clue, mpemba effect.

Consensus is not science, any REAL scientist will tell you that.
Scientific Method, How does it work?
 
2012-10-04 02:13:30 PM

gulogulo: Abuse Liability: As a post-doc I'm constantly pressured to mine for data that agrees with our hypothesis but actively try and disprove anything that would invalidate it

That's bad science. Why are you doing that? And you are in a for-profit sort of science. Mine is not. There won't be any patents coming from my models.


you would like to be funded right? trying getting a grant with specific aim number one trying to disprove global warming or challenge the belief that DNA, not protein holds codes our genotype/phenotype (this was an actual debate). We should still care about the environment but I think its foolish to believe that people aren't swayed by the almighty dollar.
 
2012-10-04 02:13:48 PM

Big Man On Campus: Don't kid yourself, Scientists are always modifying their proposals to try to win the grant money, if that means tying in their research with the focus that federal grant money has at the time, so be it.


Yeah but if they let that influence the outcome, as Abuse Liability suggested, their peers will not take kindly to that kind of thing.
 
2012-10-04 02:14:34 PM
protein, not DNA... transposed those
 
2012-10-04 02:16:36 PM
If you don't get funded... you don't get employed. We learn to suck at the government teat like our welfare brethren. Give them what they want and you're hired. Much easier to get an associates professor gig if you have a K99, versus never having received funding. shiat, even an NRSA works wonders.
 
2012-10-04 02:17:31 PM

Abuse Liability: gulogulo: Abuse Liability: As a post-doc I'm constantly pressured to mine for data that agrees with our hypothesis but actively try and disprove anything that would invalidate it

That's bad science. Why are you doing that? And you are in a for-profit sort of science. Mine is not. There won't be any patents coming from my models.

you would like to be funded right? trying getting a grant with specific aim number one trying to disprove global warming or challenge the belief that DNA, not protein holds codes our genotype/phenotype (this was an actual debate). We should still care about the environment but I think its foolish to believe that people aren't swayed by the almighty dollar.


Oh, I think you would have no problem finding organizations willing to throw money your way to disprove global climate change. My guess, actually, is there would be a lot MORE money in doing that, than the other way around. Frankly, I haven't checked, though. Climate change isn't the only subject I study. I also look at land use change, conversion from porous to impervious surfaces, habitat fragmentation, changes to hydrology, impacts to fisheries, etc. etc. Some of these are a bit more immediately relevant than climate change.
 
2012-10-04 02:20:50 PM

Joe Blowme: make me some tea: Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs

It has happened in the past plenty of times, but never before in the course of 200 years. Data from Antarctic/Arctic ice cores shows that changes take thousands of years naturally.

So we had an ice age 200 years ago? WTF?


No, about 15,000 years ago actually.

200 years is about how long we've been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and the Earth's atmosphere has been on a warming trend during that period, and up sharply the last several decades because the population has increased, countries have gotten richer and more industrialized, and so we're all burning more fuel than ever. This is uncharted territory, which is what is concerning climate scientists. We don't really know what we're doing to the planet. We have theories, but we won't know what's really going to happen until it's already happened. That's the point.
 
2012-10-04 02:21:44 PM

Abuse Liability: That's so much horse shiat. Funding is so tight right now, you write grants on what people will pay for, not what you're interested in doing (most scientists I know have an ear at NIH and will regularly look out for 'pet projects' they're interested in funding).


Yeah, and? People pay for climate change studies, true, and this makes people interested in studying climate change. So what? That doesn't equate to faking results, coming to pre-determined conclusions, or otherwise biased answers. The NSF doesn't solicit proposals to "prove climate change is due to humans and is really scary". They have RFPs for things like "quantifying feedbacks in the Earth system". If the answer comes out large, fine. If it comes out small, fine. Either way advances the science and funding agencies are happy.

you would like to be funded right? trying getting a grant with specific aim number one trying to disprove global warming

Despite being a scientist, you appear to have no idea how grants work. You don't write a grant trying to "disprove global warming", nor do you write one to "prove global warming". Suppose, say, you think that global warming is mostly due to solar cycles instead of human greenhouse gases. You don't write a proposal saying "I'm going to disprove global warming". Any respectable program officer would dump that in the trash, not because it "violates the consensus" but because claiming your result ahead of time is biased science. Instead, you send your proposal to the RFP on climate variability and say "Here is a way to better measure the effects of the solar cycle on climate that improves on previous studies of climate variability". That's exactly the sort of thing these calls exist to fund. And if it turns out that your findings show a greater role of solar variability that was previously thought, thus disproving the existing consensus on global warming, great! You'll probably get more money.
 
2012-10-04 02:24:25 PM
Some scientists calculate it is the greatest melt in the history of humankind, and there is little disagreement that it poses a perilous development for the planet.

lol
 
2012-10-04 02:24:47 PM

gulogulo: What a coincidence, I have a graduate degree in biology, and work on climate change problems. But I don't need climate change in order to get funding. At the moment, it is the question of interest, but that changes with time. Of course I need money to survive (watchout, I'm living fat off of less than 40k a year!), but to imply that it has any bearing on the results is pretty fallacious. Sure, there are some crooked scientists out there, but they are by far in the minority.


The focus of study determines the result.

For a while, physicists were hooked on string theory. They loved the physical simplicity, and the mathematical possibilities it opened up. For a decade, the trendy research topic in theoretical physics was anything related to string theory. It was touted in many magazines as the next "theory of everything" and that science may have finally cracked a solution to merging the physics of quantum mechanics with the physics of the stars.

No such breakthrough ever occurred. In fact, String Theory has yet to even come up with a single physically testable hypothesis.

Now, it's not hard to assume that no deliberate scientific malfeasance ever occurred in any of those grants that went towards string theory. However, was any progress made on true understanding of the universe? A lot of physicists would say no. In fact a lot of physicists would say that money was wasted on a line of research that might only be part of the solution to part of the problem. However, the focus of study determined what humanity got, and that was a bias that physics as a branch of study is still trying to recover from. More interestingly for our topic, the public was told that physicists were close to unlocking the secrets of gravity and the underpinnings of the standard model. The public was told that string theory was the key to understanding the universe.

Now with climate change, the tremendous amount of focus on CO2 as a driver is doing the exact same thing. It's limiting the amount of research going on in far more valid areas of study (Like, say Clouds), and it's creating a campaign where people say that we know with xxx% certainty that humanity is causing a future global cataclysm from CO2 emission.

Again, no individual scientific fraud need ever display itself, but because activism created a desire to second-guess our energy supply choices, a funding avenue to study the effects of human industry on the world temperature was created. That focus created a bias in science that is not justified and will ultimately be corrected. For now, it creates ridiculous notions where people actually believe our computer climate models (that cannot accurately model clouds, earths sunshade) are (nonetheless) superbly accurate and our planet will somehow certainly warm by x-degrees in x-years.

It's nonsense, created by scientists following the funding money, but no individual fraud was ever committed.
 
2012-10-04 02:25:31 PM

meat0918: wildcardjack: Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?

I wonder if future archeologists will look back and call this the Oil Age?


Future shamans will look back on this as the age of the gods.
 
2012-10-04 02:28:18 PM
And yet people love to yammer on about why it's supposedly a bad. thing
 
2012-10-04 02:31:46 PM
I give up. Trying to convince people that we don't know everything (read hubris) and that most climate prediction models fail Quick google search doesn't mean I'm against protecting the environment. It just means we don't have to be such alarmists. Besides, if some of those predictions are accurate, we'll either adapt and evolve, or die. I don't think there is any way we're going to get China to stop producing massive amounts of C02, even if we stop altogether. Essentially the 'you had your time' and 'now its time for our industrial revolution' mentality has set in. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many Chinese feel that its just the US wanting to keep/recapture economic leadership of the free world, similar to the way many Africans believed AIDS stood for american ideas to discourage sex.

Also, they've taken to calling mathematical projections 'in silico' (play on in vivo/in vitro). Turns out we still use animals because those models suck.
 
2012-10-04 02:31:54 PM

Big Man On Campus: Again, no individual scientific fraud need ever display itself, but because activism created a desire to second-guess our energy supply choices, a funding avenue to study the effects of human industry on the world temperature was created. That focus created a bias in science that is not justified and will ultimately be corrected. For now, it creates ridiculous notions where people actually believe our computer climate models (that cannot accurately model clouds, earths sunshade) are (nonetheless) superbly accurate and our planet will somehow certainly warm by x-degrees in x-years.


I won't argue with you that there are still massive uncertainties in how some of the change will develop (cloud cover, atmospheric turbulence, precipitation to name a few of those highly variable parameters). And the reason I won't argue with you about that is because among the scientist there is -no- ridiculous notion that computer climate models are superbly accurate, as we all recognize these are very complex systems. Any scientist worth their salt acknowledges the uncertainties in their model. Hell, I don't think you can get published these days without making sure you acknowledge them. And perhaps money has been funneled away from other worthwhile endeavors such as exploring the effects of suspended water vapor, albedo effects, etc, but that does not make the CO2 hypothesis less valid. There is compelling evidence that it has been a driver, and that we have been causing that.
 
2012-10-04 02:34:13 PM

mytdawg: We have learned nothing. We shall milk the earth until she's dry or she rears back and destroys us first. Blind pursuit of profit will be our undoing as it has been to this point.


Got a better idea? There are 7 BILLION people needing food, water, shelter and a great variety of goods and services. What, my good man, would you propose we do rather than use available resources to make life tolerable for most if not all of humanity?
 
2012-10-04 02:36:04 PM

Abuse Liability: I give up. Trying to convince people that we don't know everything (read hubris) and that most climate prediction models fail Quick google search doesn't mean I'm against protecting the environment. It just means we don't have to be such alarmists. Besides, if some of those predictions are accurate, we'll either adapt and evolve, or die. I don't think there is any way we're going to get China to stop producing massive amounts of C02, even if we stop altogether. Essentially the 'you had your time' and 'now its time for our industrial revolution' mentality has set in. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many Chinese feel that its just the US wanting to keep/recapture economic leadership of the free world, similar to the way many Africans believed AIDS stood for american ideas to discourage sex.


Hey, I don't disagree with you about this. I study it, I think it's the C02, and frankly, I think for some places it the earth it's going to be really detrimental (i.e. the American Southwest, coastal fisheries), while others aren't going to see such a large impact. But, that isn't going to change people's behavior. Even if the science has 'figured it out' (relatively speaking), the socio-political sphere will continue to not allow that science to be part of the discussion if it conflicts with the socio-political norms and narratives. Best I can hope to do is say "Hey, here's what we should probably be preparing for. Especially if we start seeing the trends my models predict."
 
2012-10-04 02:37:32 PM

Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: That's so much horse shiat. Funding is so tight right now, you write grants on what people will pay for, not what you're interested in doing (most scientists I know have an ear at NIH and will regularly look out for 'pet projects' they're interested in funding).

Yeah, and? People pay for climate change studies, true, and this makes people interested in studying climate change. So what? That doesn't equate to faking results, coming to pre-determined conclusions, or otherwise biased answers. The NSF doesn't solicit proposals to "prove climate change is due to humans and is really scary". They have RFPs for things like "quantifying feedbacks in the Earth system". If the answer comes out large, fine. If it comes out small, fine. Either way advances the science and funding agencies are happy.

you would like to be funded right? trying getting a grant with specific aim number one trying to disprove global warming

Despite being a scientist, you appear to have no idea how grants work. You don't write a grant trying to "disprove global warming", nor do you write one to "prove global warming". Suppose, say, you think that global warming is mostly due to solar cycles instead of human greenhouse gases. You don't write a proposal saying "I'm going to disprove global warming". Any respectable program officer would dump that in the trash, not because it "violates the consensus" but because claiming your result ahead of time is biased science. Instead, you send your proposal to the RFP on climate variability and say "Here is a way to better measure the effects of the solar cycle on climate that improves on previous studies of climate variability". That's exactly the sort of thing these calls exist to fund. And if it turns out that your findings show a greater role of solar variability that was previously thought, thus disproving the existing consensus on global warming, great! You'll probably get more money.


Obviously you wouldn't write it that way. But anyone who's ever written a grant period knows you have to include an impact statement (for the lay person) which usually amounts to a paragraph summary statement. In my experience most grants are 'fishing' for a particular result. You even have to predict the outcome of your study in your proposal and possible difficulties associated with it and its interpretation. If you don't think people get a general sense of what you're trying to do from all this information.

I'm not saying everything is biased. Sometimes your go to institution (say NIDA) in funding a lot of siRNA research, and you're and in vivo pharmacologist. You either adapt, find another institution (like there are sooo many of those), or teach somewhere.
 
2012-10-04 02:38:48 PM

Joe Blowme: make me some tea: Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs

It has happened in the past plenty of times, but never before in the course of 200 years. Data from Antarctic/Arctic ice cores shows that changes take thousands of years naturally.

So we had an ice age 200 years ago? WTF?


We are still in the end stages of an ice age. Not every age has had ice at the poles.
 
2012-10-04 02:39:26 PM

gulogulo: Abuse Liability: I give up. Trying to convince people that we don't know everything (read hubris) and that most climate prediction models fail Quick google search doesn't mean I'm against protecting the environment. It just means we don't have to be such alarmists. Besides, if some of those predictions are accurate, we'll either adapt and evolve, or die. I don't think there is any way we're going to get China to stop producing massive amounts of C02, even if we stop altogether. Essentially the 'you had your time' and 'now its time for our industrial revolution' mentality has set in. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many Chinese feel that its just the US wanting to keep/recapture economic leadership of the free world, similar to the way many Africans believed AIDS stood for american ideas to discourage sex.

Hey, I don't disagree with you about this. I study it, I think it's the C02, and frankly, I think for some places it the earth it's going to be really detrimental (i.e. the American Southwest, coastal fisheries), while others aren't going to see such a large impact. But, that isn't going to change people's behavior. Even if the science has 'figured it out' (relatively speaking), the socio-political sphere will continue to not allow that science to be part of the discussion if it conflicts with the socio-political norms and narratives. Best I can hope to do is say "Hey, here's what we should probably be preparing for. Especially if we start seeing the trends my models predict."


I agree with you
 
2012-10-04 02:41:07 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: mytdawg: We have learned nothing. We shall milk the earth until she's dry or she rears back and destroys us first. Blind pursuit of profit will be our undoing as it has been to this point.

Got a better idea? There are 7 BILLION people needing food, water, shelter and a great variety of goods and services. What, my good man, would you propose we do rather than use available resources to make life tolerable for most if not all of humanity?


Use those resources to figure out how to get at least partially off of this rock.
 
2012-10-04 02:41:22 PM

Abuse Liability: I give up. Trying to convince people that we don't know everything (read hubris)


This, again, is a red herring. Nobody in this thread claimed to "know everything". This is stupid. We never know everything. We do know something, however: the likely range of past and future human-contributed climate change. The fact that uncertainties exist doesn't mean that we don't have a good idea of the relative contributions of human and natural factors.

and that most climate prediction models fail [Quick google search]

Most climate prediction models don't fail, and getting your science from quick Google searches is foolish. I can Google "evolution is wrong" and find links to papers that claim this, but that doesn't mean they're valid. What kind of scientist are you, anyway? You're going to try to convince people of something that you have no detailed knowledge of yourself and are relying on random Google opinions?

With respect to that specific paper, see here.

Also, they've taken to calling mathematical projections 'in silico' (play on in vivo/in vitro). Turns out we still use animals because those models suck.

That's nice, and totally irrelevant to the skill of physical climate models.
 
2012-10-04 02:41:49 PM
So now climate change has made it easier for oil and other energy multinational corporations to find what they sell, then sell it... then it's burned, which makes climate change worse... which enables them to find more of what they sell, then sell it... then it's burned, which makes climate change worse...

It's like fat guy sitting on top of a machine that dispenses doughnuts, and as he gains weight from eating the doughnuts the machine spits out more of them... eventually one of two things will happen - he will break the machine (climate change), or it will run out of doughnuts (oil). I think both will probably happen before this is over.
 
2012-10-04 02:42:26 PM

WizardofToast: Okay, say climate change is fake and whatever...what the fark do we do when we run OUT of oil? That crap doesn't grow on trees.


Are you really so sure that oil is a finite resource produced by rotting dinosaurs? That 18th century concept is now in dispute. There just weren't that many dinsoaurs to explain away how much oil there is in the earth. Hydrocarbons may have other sources. Not my fight. Just saying. Go look it up.
 
2012-10-04 02:43:00 PM

Abuse Liability: gulogulo: Abuse Liability: I give up. Trying to convince people that we don't know everything (read hubris) and that most climate prediction models fail Quick google search doesn't mean I'm against protecting the environment. It just means we don't have to be such alarmists. Besides, if some of those predictions are accurate, we'll either adapt and evolve, or die. I don't think there is any way we're going to get China to stop producing massive amounts of C02, even if we stop altogether. Essentially the 'you had your time' and 'now its time for our industrial revolution' mentality has set in. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many Chinese feel that its just the US wanting to keep/recapture economic leadership of the free world, similar to the way many Africans believed AIDS stood for american ideas to discourage sex.

Hey, I don't disagree with you about this. I study it, I think it's the C02, and frankly, I think for some places it the earth it's going to be really detrimental (i.e. the American Southwest, coastal fisheries), while others aren't going to see such a large impact. But, that isn't going to change people's behavior. Even if the science has 'figured it out' (relatively speaking), the socio-political sphere will continue to not allow that science to be part of the discussion if it conflicts with the socio-political norms and narratives. Best I can hope to do is say "Hey, here's what we should probably be preparing for. Especially if we start seeing the trends my models predict."

I agree with you


And THAT is if my results make it out of the scientific journals into the public sphere..which has a very small probability of happening. Maybe my school might make a press release. And then, maybe, just maybe some local paper will think it's interesting enough to run with it. And then, there's the gamble that it's entirely twisted and misinterpreted. Fun stuff.
 
2012-10-04 02:45:50 PM

gulogulo: Big Man On Campus: Again, no individual scientific fraud need ever display itself, but because activism created a desire to second-guess our energy supply choices, a funding avenue to study the effects of human industry on the world temperature was created. That focus created a bias in science that is not justified and will ultimately be corrected. For now, it creates ridiculous notions where people actually believe our computer climate models (that cannot accurately model clouds, earths sunshade) are (nonetheless) superbly accurate and our planet will somehow certainly warm by x-degrees in x-years.

I won't argue with you that there are still massive uncertainties in how some of the change will develop (cloud cover, atmospheric turbulence, precipitation to name a few of those highly variable parameters). And the reason I won't argue with you about that is because among the scientist there is -no- ridiculous notion that computer climate models are superbly accurate, as we all recognize these are very complex systems. Any scientist worth their salt acknowledges the uncertainties in their model. Hell, I don't think you can get published these days without making sure you acknowledge them. And perhaps money has been funneled away from other worthwhile endeavors such as exploring the effects of suspended water vapor, albedo effects, etc, but that does not make the CO2 hypothesis less valid. There is compelling evidence that it has been a driver, and that we have been causing that.



I don't think you quite read what I wrote...

Please consider that your question by definition will determine the answer you get. If you continue to ask the same question different ways, you'll just keep confirming the question you already asked. If, however you set funding aside to ask totally different questions, you are guaranteed to learn something new. Can you honestly believe that we have not biased our question on what drives climate change considering we came to this CO2-as-primary-driver conclusion in only 10-15 years of study and have not seriously funded alternative theories since?
 
2012-10-04 02:45:57 PM

mytdawg: We have learned nothing. We shall milk the earth until she's dry or she rears back and destroys us first. Blind pursuit of profit will be our undoing as it has been to this point.

It's kinda like watching Jim from Wild Kingdom wrestle the anaconda.


Ew, which episode was that?
 
2012-10-04 02:47:46 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: mytdawg: We have learned nothing. We shall milk the earth until she's dry or she rears back and destroys us first. Blind pursuit of profit will be our undoing as it has been to this point.

Got a better idea? There are 7 BILLION people needing food, water, shelter and a great variety of goods and services. What, my good man, would you propose we do rather than use available resources to make life tolerable for most if not all of humanity?


I'm kind of fond of retroactive abortion for the stupid, personally. I'm definitely pro-death. Pro abortion, pro capital punishment, euthanasia for the dull. Execution for parking tickets, that kinda thing.
 
2012-10-04 02:48:04 PM

Abuse Liability: Obviously you wouldn't write it that way. But anyone who's ever written a grant period knows you have to include an impact statement (for the lay person) which usually amounts to a paragraph summary statement.


Yeah, so what? You write "better quantifying solar variability will lead to improved climate predictions". Which is entirely true and is exactly what they're looking for. You happen to think that it will improve them by revising them downward, but it could come out the other way (you don't know until you've done the study). The main thing is that improved measurements will improve predictions.

It's also easy to Google the papers of climate skeptics and see that they cite completely mainstream funding sources like NSF, DOE, etc.

Another, real-life example: This study got a fair bit of press coverage at the time for claiming to have lowered the likelihood of extreme climate change, which was rather controversial among mainstream climate scientists. It arose out of a completely standard NSF grant on paleoclimate variability. It resulted in a Science paper, and if you search recent awards on Fastlane, you can see that paper also led to a second grant to do follow-up work.
 
2012-10-04 02:48:56 PM

Big Man On Campus: Please consider that your question by definition will determine the answer you get. If you continue to ask the same question different ways, you'll just keep confirming the question you already asked. If, however you set funding aside to ask totally different questions, you are guaranteed to learn something new. Can you honestly believe that we have not biased our question on what drives climate change considering we came to this CO2-as-primary-driver conclusion in only 10-15 years of study and have not seriously funded alternative theories since?


I did read your question. And I conceded that it might, but does that mean the conclusions are wrong about the CO2 driven climate change? What 'same' questions are being asked that would make this conclusion any less valid?
 
2012-10-04 02:49:11 PM

meat0918: wildcardjack: Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?

I wonder if future archeologists will look back and call this the Oil Age?


Not coincidentally, oilage is also a term for the amount of lubrication present in or around the anus
 
2012-10-04 02:50:45 PM
It's win-win-win - the more fossil fuels we burn, the more polar ice recedes opening up new areas for oil exploration & drilling, allowing us to burn more fossil fuels, making the polar ice recede more, etc. ad infinitum, right?
 
2012-10-04 02:50:46 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: Are you really so sure that oil is a finite resource produced by rotting dinosaurs? That 18th century concept is now in dispute. There just weren't that many dinsoaurs to explain away how much oil there is in the earth.


Nope. Abiogenic oil is still a crackpot idea disputed by nobody serious, including oil companies. And there was certainly enough life (not "dinosaurs", but algae and stuff like that) to explain how much oil we've found.
 
2012-10-04 02:52:26 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: WizardofToast: Okay, say climate change is fake and whatever...what the fark do we do when we run OUT of oil? That crap doesn't grow on trees.

Are you really so sure that oil is a finite resource produced by rotting dinosaurs? That 18th century concept is now in dispute. There just weren't that many dinsoaurs to explain away how much oil there is in the earth. Hydrocarbons may have other sources. Not my fight. Just saying. Go look it up.


No who is midly educated in science has every thought that oil was made from rotting dinosaurs. Thanks for playing.
 
2012-10-04 02:52:56 PM

make me some tea: Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs

It has happened in the past plenty of times, but never before in the course of 200 years. Data from Antarctic/Arctic ice cores shows that changes take thousands of years naturally.


THIS. What the deniers haven't been able to understand when they say things like "well the earth has warmed before" as if that was the end to the argument is that past cycles of warming and cooling have taken place over thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years.

The sh*t that's happening now started after the united states was established as a country, a short enough time that there are people alive today whose great great great grandparents might have been around when it began.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report