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  
•       •       •

3982 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 02:53:25 PM
Abuse Liability: "Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models."

Lucky for us we didn't just start looking at atmospheric CO2 yesterday. So we actually have *decades* of research into whether such mechanisms might exist, what impact they might have, etc.
And the short version is that while the future is always and of course unknowable, the chance that an algal bloom or something will appear tomorrow to notably mitigate the CO2 feedback problem becomes notably less likely every year that atmospheric CO2 increases, temperature increases and no signs of significant compensatory mechanisms emerge.
 
2012-10-04 02:53:30 PM

Ambitwistor: 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.


I was simply showing how poorly most 'models' make out. That paper was from a respected peer reviewed journal. If some other scientist found fault with it, at least three others didn't. My comparison to biological models is that for some reason, we think we have the audacity to think we have climate modeling figured out. You mentioned above that no one claimed to know everything but people sure as hell post charts that give us what will happen (with error bars) over the next 20 odd years or so and that compensatory factors are 'predicted' within the model... let me go back in the thread and find it.

Oh, its you

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.

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


Btw, this worked out swell for all the in silico scientists. Hilarious watching them try to figure out why a simulation doesn't accurately predict what occurs in a whole organism. Most scientists investigate natural phenomenon by isolating a few variables and then manipulating one at a time. What happens once we stick the cell back inside the animals is a different story altogether.
 
2012-10-04 02:55:13 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.


Perhaps among people who believe our hydrocarbon supply came from a couple of lizards, yes I imagine there would be some dispute slurred drunkenly through missing teeth. The idea that our oil came from a few hundred billion tons of marine life is alive and well.
 
2012-10-04 02:55:18 PM

gulogulo: 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.


Yeah, I wouldn't do climate science if you paid me.

Althought I already have three first author manuscript (along with a handful of second authors) and I hope to finally pull down some funding this year.
 
2012-10-04 02:56:32 PM

Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.


All you really have to do to convince a "skeptic" is to tell them this: We know pretty much every factor that makes the climate change. And we still can't use those factors to line up the last 200 years with historical trends. So, either there's a "hidden" factor in climate change that didn't do anything until 200 years ago...or something that happened 200 years ago is a large factor in climate change, overriding many of the other factors in a big way. Hmm...what happened about 200 years ago that could have byproducts that make the climate change?

...if they're still "skeptics" after this...they're not really "skeptics".
 
2012-10-04 02:57:25 PM
Those bastard! Refusing to admit they might be wrong and put a second set of error bars around the primary error bars!
 
2012-10-04 02:58:14 PM

Abuse Liability: gulogulo: 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.

Yeah, I wouldn't do climate science if you paid me.

Althought I alrea ...


Yeah, pharmaceutical science is much better funded than climate change or any of the environmental sciences. Funny, huh? We care a lot about the stuff we put in our bodies (not saying we shouldn't) but don't care so much about the shiat we live in and depend on for healthier lives.
 
2012-10-04 02:59:09 PM

make me some tea: 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.


I must say, that is a refreshing response for a change. The only solution is to invest in space and colonization of other celestial bodies.... or we start planet wide population control and culling the heard. Reducing co2 will do nothing for the next asteroid or meteor or prevent the sun from going red giant and vororizing us, kind of silly to put all eggs in one basket.
 
2012-10-04 02:59:19 PM

IlGreven: Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.

All you really have to do to convince a "skeptic" is to tell them this: We know pretty much every factor that makes the climate change. And we still can't use those factors to line up the last 200 years with historical trends. So, either there's a "hidden" factor in climate change that didn't do anything until 200 years ago...or something that happened 200 years ago is a large factor in climate change, overriding many of the other factors in a big way. Hmm...what happened about 200 years ago that could have byproducts that make the climate change?

...if they're still "skeptics" after this...they're not really "skeptics".


I don't think "we know pretty much every factor that makes climate change" is a verifiably accurate statement.
 
2012-10-04 03:01:16 PM

Abuse Liability: Btw, this worked out swell for all the in silico scientists. Hilarious watching them try to figure out why a simulation doesn't accurately predict what occurs in a whole organism. Most scientists investigate natural phenomenon by isolating a few variables and then manipulating one at a time. What happens once we stick the cell back inside the animals is a different story altogether.


I'd like to point out that this 'reductionism' isn't really as widely accepted any more in the environmental sciences. The stochasticity and emergent properties of complex adaptive systems is being incorporated more into our predictions.
 
2012-10-04 03:01:30 PM
Well, I actually do have to analyze some data. I'll just refer anyone that still wants to argue/take issue to read my earlier statement about hanging around for the next 30 years to see how things work out. Adios
 
2012-10-04 03:02:42 PM

Abuse Liability: I was simply showing how poorly most 'models' make out.


No you weren't. You were Googling a single random paper that agrees with some conclusion you pre-specified, and claiming it disproves the skill of "most climate models". You're not competent to judge the quality of that paper, and surely are not naive enough to think that one randomly Googled paper overturns 40 years of climate science. Any serious scientist would wait and look at the followup literature Especially given how many questionable claims routinely get through peer review.

I really didn't want to be insulting, but I'm really questioning your competency as a scientist. Is this how you evaluate work in your own field? You think I can "disprove" your work, let alone mainstream and well-established findings in your field, by finding some random paper that disagrees with it?

You mentioned above that no one claimed to know everything but people sure as hell post charts that give us what will happen (with error bars) over the next 20 odd years or so and that compensatory factors are 'predicted' within the model...

Yes, and they are. What part of "uncertainty" do you not understand? No, we don't know everything about the system. Yes, we can produce realistic bounds on its behavior.

Btw, this worked out swell for all the in silico scientists.

You don't need a fancy ecosystem model to predict this. Even back of the envelope calculations tell you that ecosystem modifications to the carbon cycle, while significant, aren't going to dramatically change the uncertainty envelope, which isn't dominated by biogeochemical uncertainty.

Seriously, man. There have been many decades of work on this. Read about it sometime if you want to understand what we do and don't know about the problem.
 
2012-10-04 03:04:24 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 03:05:14 PM

gulogulo: Abuse Liability: Btw, this worked out swell for all the in silico scientists. Hilarious watching them try to figure out why a simulation doesn't accurately predict what occurs in a whole organism. Most scientists investigate natural phenomenon by isolating a few variables and then manipulating one at a time. What happens once we stick the cell back inside the animals is a different story altogether.

I'd like to point out that this 'reductionism' isn't really as widely accepted any more in the environmental sciences. The stochasticity and emergent properties of complex adaptive systems is being incorporated more into our predictions.


yep, not working out well for us either. 95 percent of all drugs that enter into clinical trials fail because in vitro/in vivo work doesn't predict efficacy in human models. We're working on it.
 
2012-10-04 03:08:15 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?


Condoms.
 
2012-10-04 03:10:13 PM

mytdawg: 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.


Well, in retrospect, your violent, murderous approach trumps my desire to see humanity move forward. What was I thinking! I bow to your intellectual and moral prowess in such matters. My bad.
 
2012-10-04 03:12:32 PM

JackieRabbit: The melting of the ice caps can in no way be looked at as a positive development.


Try hitting yourself in the head with a hammer a few times first. It might simulate the sort of brain damage required to do just that.
 
2012-10-04 03:13:48 PM

CygnusDarius: Let's see: Climate change, rampant exploitation of non-renewable resources by energy companies, increasing sense of anger towards The Establishment, growing sense of paranoia by both the multi-national corporations and governments...

I give it two years, for this.

[g-ecx.images-amazon.com image 800x450]


Begun, these Resource Wars have.
 
2012-10-04 03:14:58 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.

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.


You sound concerned...
 
2012-10-04 03:22:00 PM
Greenland is not its own country. Just saying.
 
2012-10-04 03:22:22 PM

jigger: Some scientists calculate it is the greatest melt in the history of humankind

Well they haven't read articles from the 1920s where explorers found totally ice free waters above the 81st parallel.


Can someone provide links to reprints of such articles or discussion from grandchildren of the locals from back then?
 
2012-10-04 03:23:06 PM

gulogulo: It's a newish term, starting to crop up in the scientific journals I read. Mostly Anthropology journals.


Well it has a WP page so there's that.
 
2012-10-04 03:27:54 PM

revrendjim: 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.


Again, not my fight. If they still consider oil to be of biological origin in 200 years, then I'm okay with that. I suspect that there will be plenty of the stuff around 200 years from now, although I don't know if any of our kind will be here to argue the point.

We all believe what we are taught, and we all hope that what we are taught is right. But on so many things, new ideas and newly unearthed evidence is likely. It's not a consensus thing, it's a reality thing.

The stuff is here. There's gobs of it despite how much humankind had pulled up and used. A tremendous number of our scientific beliefs have been overturned in the last 150 years, and perhaps, just perhaps, the origin of crude oil might be proven in coming centuries. You are probably correct. Probably. What we believe today matters little. The reality should be provable in the future.
 
2012-10-04 03:42:35 PM

Flakeloaf: 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?

Condoms.


THIS



and shoot on sght anyone preaching against them.
 
2012-10-04 03:46:33 PM

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

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

I dunno, will cockroach societies have archaeologists?


Eventually, sure.
 
2012-10-04 03:47:29 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: IlGreven: Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.

All you really have to do to convince a "skeptic" is to tell them this: We know pretty much every factor that makes the climate change. And we still can't use those factors to line up the last 200 years with historical trends. So, either there's a "hidden" factor in climate change that didn't do anything until 200 years ago...or something that happened 200 years ago is a large factor in climate change, overriding many of the other factors in a big way. Hmm...what happened about 200 years ago that could have byproducts that make the climate change?

...if they're still "skeptics" after this...they're not really "skeptics".

I don't think "we know pretty much every factor that makes climate change" is a verifiably accurate statement.


Well, then, what factors are we missing? And can they have predicted the spike in the past 200 years that known factors haven't predicted?
 
2012-10-04 03:51:54 PM

IlGreven: Holocaust Agnostic: IlGreven: Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.

All you really have to do to convince a "skeptic" is to tell them this: We know pretty much every factor that makes the climate change. And we still can't use those factors to line up the last 200 years with historical trends. So, either there's a "hidden" factor in climate change that didn't do anything until 200 years ago...or something that happened 200 years ago is a large factor in climate change, overriding many of the other factors in a big way. Hmm...what happened about 200 years ago that could have byproducts that make the climate change?

...if they're still "skeptics" after this...they're not really "skeptics".

I don't think "we know pretty much every factor that makes climate change" is a verifiably accurate statement.

Well, then, what factors are we missing? And can they have predicted the spike in the past 200 years that known factors haven't predicted?


thecynicaleconomist.com
 
2012-10-04 03:54:28 PM
Which is probably why they pay people to write bullshiat "No no, there's no such thing!" articles.
 
2012-10-04 03:55:37 PM

Joe Blowme: IlGreven: Holocaust Agnostic: IlGreven: Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.

All you really have to do to convince a "skeptic" is to tell them this: We know pretty much every factor that makes the climate change. And we still can't use those factors to line up the last 200 years with historical trends. So, either there's a "hidden" factor in climate change that didn't do anything until 200 years ago...or something that happened 200 years ago is a large factor in climate change, overriding many of the other factors in a big way. Hmm...what happened about 200 years ago that could have byproducts that make the climate change?

...if they're still "skeptics" after this...they're not really "skeptics".

I don't think "we know pretty much every factor that makes climate change" is a verifiably accurate statement.

Well, then, what factors are we missing? And can they have predicted the spike in the past 200 years that known factors haven't predicted?

[thecynicaleconomist.com image 299x400]
I don't know the difference between "Time" and scientific journals


No one expects you to, sweetie.
 
2012-10-04 03:57:01 PM

Joe Blowme:

[thecynicaleconomist.com image 299x400]


I see laypeople still can't tell the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific journal article and a TIME magazine cover.
 
2012-10-04 04:04:24 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?


They're already calling it the Petroleum Age, as when they dig the top layer of sites, they find microscopic bits of plastic everywhere on the planet. It's our lasting contribution to history, and the way they will identify the dividing line between the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

We're not the only culture to leave behind something which will never fully degrade. Pottery shards are likewise basically indestructible, which is why we use them to ID and date cultures around the world.
 
2012-10-04 04:04:53 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Joe Blowme:

[thecynicaleconomist.com image 299x400]

I see laypeople still can't tell the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific journal article and a TIME magazine cover.



In this case I would settle for telling the difference between real and faked.
 
2012-10-04 04:12:48 PM
National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 "The Cooling World"

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 - Washington Times - September 19, 2007

Excerpt: "The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts," read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 - September 29, 2009 - By John Tierney - Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, "Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide," Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science 'Czar' John Holdren's 1971 warning: A 'New Ice Age' likely - September 23, 2009)

Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. (LINK)


So many fakes to choose from
 
2012-10-04 04:14:15 PM

IlGreven: Holocaust Agnostic: IlGreven: Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.

All you really have to do to convince a "skeptic" is to tell them this: We know pretty much every factor that makes the climate change. And we still can't use those factors to line up the last 200 years with historical trends. So, either there's a "hidden" factor in climate change that didn't do anything until 200 years ago...or something that happened 200 years ago is a large factor in climate change, overriding many of the other factors in a big way. Hmm...what happened about 200 years ago that could have byproducts that make the climate change?

...if they're still "skeptics" after this...they're not really "skeptics".

I don't think "we know pretty much every factor that makes climate change" is a verifiably accurate statement.

Well, then, what factors are we missing? And can they have predicted the spike in the past 200 years that known factors haven't predicted?


Who knows what's missing? Sometimes you can't find a hole till you stick you foot in it.

Dosent mean we DON'T know what CO2 does and can't make reasonable predictions about what will happen if scalds of it is added to the system.
 
2012-10-04 04:16:49 PM

Joe Blowme:

[thecynicaleconomist.com image 299x400]


IIRC the "Ice Age" hypothesis came about because they looked at the local effects of particle pollutants in the air. They didn't know about the greenhouse stuff back then (again, IIRC).

See, the thing about science is that it isn't graven in stone. Scientists create models that attempt to explain the world we see around us. When contradicting evidence is found, the models are changed or discarded altogether. This is why science differs from religion. As things are now, our biosphere is ramming evidence supporting man-made GW down our throats on a near-daily basis.
 
2012-10-04 04:19:18 PM

Joe Blowme: National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 "The Cooling World"

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 - Washington Times - September 19, 2007

Excerpt: "The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts," read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 - September 29, 2009 - By John Tierney - Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, "Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide," Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science 'Czar' John Holdren's 1971 warning: A 'New Ice Age' likely - September 23, 2009)

Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) converted into a leading global warming skeptic before his death in 2008. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. (LINK)


So many fakes to choose from


Yeah, global dimming was a thing. The scientists saying it would cause an ice age were outnumbered even then by the ones saying its effects would eventually be overwhelmed by anthropogenic warming.
 
2012-10-04 04:27:04 PM

Uncle Tractor: IIRC the "Ice Age" hypothesis came about because they looked at the local effects of particle pollutants in the air. They didn't know about the greenhouse stuff back then (again, IIRC).

Oh, they've known about the human-induced greenhouse effect since 1896. They just weren't sure which effect was bigger, CO2 warming or pollutant cooling. Also, to make the story more complex, geologists had just discovered how abrupt some past coolings were, and that triggered anxiety over reproducing such abrupt changes. But even then, as pointed out by Holocaust Agnostic, most thought the CO2 warming would be the dominant effect, at least in the future.

 
2012-10-04 04:28:52 PM

Joe Blowme: I must say, that is a refreshing response for a change. The only solution is to invest in space and colonization of other celestial bodies.... or we start planet wide population control and culling the heard. Reducing co2 will do nothing for the next asteroid or meteor or prevent the sun from going red giant and vororizing us, kind of silly to put all eggs in one basket.


Zuh?

The planet won't be uninhabitable as it warms up, as they say "life finds a way" of course, but we can probably expect it to be very different than it is now. The problem is, we don't know how different it will be, and depending on what happens, entire civilizations will go through upheavals due to changes in ocean level and climate patterns. We're not all gonna die, but it's gonna suck ass if this starts to happen within 100 years give or take. That will directly affect my possible children and any possible grandchildren. If you listen to the scientists instead of the politicians and talking heads, you'll hear the same thing from them. I mean, why take the risk if we don't have to?

Given the uncertainty, I firmly believe we need to wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel tit and invest in green tech and reduce our CO2 emissions. It just seems like common sense to me. I don't understand why there's so much drama about this issue.
 
2012-10-04 04:29:51 PM
"... offshore exploration can be done in a way that protects the environment."

*raucous laughter*
 
2012-10-04 04:32:04 PM

Joe Blowme: So many fakes to choose from


Yeah, our ability to study the Earth with better tech (internet-enabled monitoring stations, more capable satellites, etc) has increased in capacity significantly since the '70s 8-bit computer we were on back then.
 
2012-10-04 04:34:00 PM

Joe Blowme: National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 "The Cooling World"

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 - Washington Times - September 19, 2007

Excerpt: "The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts," read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 - September 29, 2009 - By John Tierney - Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, "Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide," Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization ...


i45.tinypic.com
From here (pdf)

Two things you should be taking from this. First, the presence of a view doesn't tell you much about how prevalent it is. Second, the popular media really isn't a good place to get a handle on scientific information.
 
2012-10-04 04:39:51 PM

gulogulo: 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?


Yes, it could very well mean that the conclusions are wrong about CO2 as a driver. Consider that when most of the work done to "conclude" that CO2 was a driving force of climate, we were still using Intel 386/486 processors at home. It was the 1990s, and computers were increasing in complexity fast, but compared to today, they were crap. The Supercomputers of the time are close to what you own in your average $400 nVidia setup today. We absolutely could not model clouds worth a damn back then, and we still can't. They're very very complex and dynamic things and their effect on ingoing/outgoing radiation is a whole order of magnitude of complexity on top of simply simulating what kind of cloud it is. We somehow came to this conclusion that CO2 was the driving force before we even entered the 2000s. From that point on, funding any alternative views or different studies on other factors that may be driving the climate almost entirely dried up. In fact, other scientists openly mock those who research other factors as being denialists.

Does that not sound exactly like the kind of bias that a string-theorist might have shown towards your run-of-the-mill particle physicist who embraced the old standard model? It does to me. It should to you.

All of the follow-on studies to demonstrate that CO2 as a driver were taken from the standpoint that we had already "confirmed" CO2 as a driver. That itself would bias the results at least a little bit. More importantly, because our understanding of this complex system is so new, it's not just possible, but almost an established fact that our tools for understanding the climate are too crude to show us the entire picture. Again, clouds are not modelled correctly. Any climate simulation expert who is honest will tell you this. Nor is their effect on radiation balance, which would be an additional simulation on top of properly simulating their formation, lifecycle, and disspation, simulated properly on top of that. So yes, there are questions that are not being asked. The answers to these questions are being openly replaced with fudgy assumptions or best-guesses about how they work, not lengthy research. The scientists making these assumptions are not lying, they're caveating properly. But the activists (some of them scientists themselves) reading their research run all the way to the sirens with alarm about how we know for certain that we're all gonna die because we drive cars that are too big. Meanwhile the scientific community at large pats itself on the back for having these "properly bounded" simulations that are saving the world when in fact we've got nothing.

Actually, here's a tough one for you. Go find a climate simulator that properly predicts ENSO (el nino southern oscillation) for more than a year in advance. Now mind you, that simulation is much easier than simulating the entire earth for 50-100 years. In this case you've only got to worry about one large body of water, the sun, and the atmosphere. It should be easy, right? It's not. In fact, no such prediction value exists. Believe me, if it did exist, the value to the United States would be TREMENDOUS. ENSO determines farm yield through precipitation patterns. It determines energy use for cooling buildings in summer heat waves and heating in the winter. If such prediction capability did exist, the company offering these predictions would literally own the stock market because the investment value in their prediction would simply be worth too much. Mind you, predicting ENSO is easier than simulating the Earth's aggregate temperature in 50 years. An easy response to me in rebuttal of this is simply saying that there's lots of energy circulating in the ocean, and knowing the ocean temperature to all depths and it's circulation pattern is simply beyond our capability, and that would be true. But that's *also* true for the climate modellers, and they are still fixated on CO2 as a driver. Makes you think, doesn't it?

The conclusion that CO2 is a primary driver is not a final conclusion, it never was. It was marketed as such, and those that want to believe they are saving the world (all of us) find ourselves tempted to defend the models, but that's a mistake, we should be trying to destroy the models. Pretending that we know CO2 is the primary temperature driver is just like pretending that string theory was our ultimate solution for the universe. We simply haven't done enough work on understanding the very basic effects that the climate has on itself to know this.
 
2012-10-04 05:00:59 PM

Joe Blowme:
thecynicaleconomist.com

Uhhhh, you know that TIME magazine cover is a fake right? A Photoshop? As in it never existed? Heck, the layout doesn't even match the era. You can search all of the TIME magazine covers on their website. Link

These are the first two covers of April 1977:
img.timeinc.net

img.timeinc.net
 
2012-10-04 05:01:32 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: IlGreven: Holocaust Agnostic: IlGreven: Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.

All you really have to do to convince a "skeptic" is to tell them this: We know pretty much every factor that makes the climate change. And we still can't use those factors to line up the last 200 years with historical trends. So, either there's a "hidden" factor in climate change that didn't do anything until 200 years ago...or something that happened 200 years ago is a large factor in climate change, overriding many of the other factors in a big way. Hmm...what happened about 200 years ago that could have byproducts that make the climate change?

...if they're still "skeptics" after this...they're not really "skeptics".

I don't think "we know pretty much every factor that makes climate change" is a verifiably accurate statement.

Well, then, what factors are we missing? And can they have predicted the spike in the past 200 years that known factors haven't predicted?

Who knows what's missing? Sometimes you can't find a hole till you stick you foot in it.

Dosent mean we DON'T know what CO2 does and can't make reasonable predictions about what will happen if scalds of it is added to the system.


...sounds like we're on the same page, but I'm basically talking about the "skeptics" who say that it's the sun cycle or albedo or "Mars is warming, too" or any of the myriad other hundreds of things that most of these charts have already accounted for...and because they're accounted for, they can be ruled out as a cause of the spike.
 
2012-10-04 05:13:35 PM

Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: 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?

Yes, it could very well mean that the conclusions are wrong about CO2 as a driver. Consider that when most of the work done to "conclude" that CO2 was a driving force of climate, we were still using Intel 386/486 processors at home. It was the 1990s, and computers were increasing in complexity fast, but compared to today, they were crap. The Supercomputers of the time are close to what you own in your average $400 nVidia setup today. We absolutely could not model clouds worth a damn back then, and we still can't. They're very very complex and dynamic things and their effect on ingoing/outgoing radiation is a whole order of magnitude of complexity on top of simply simulating what kind of cloud it is. We somehow came to this conclusion that CO2 was the driving force before we even entered the 2000s. From that point on, funding any alternative views or different studies on other factors that may be driving the climate almost entirely dried up. In fact, other scientists openly mock those who research other factors as being denialists.

Does that not sound exactly like the kind of bias that a string-theorist might have shown towards your run-of-the-mill particle physicist who e ...


Long term climate forcings aren't the same thing as year to year fluctuations in ENSO or other weather patterns. The detail needed on small scales isn't needed on large scales. You're basically asking why we don't include the effect of Pluto on Earth's orbit around the Sun. Sure, there's some non zero effect there, but the Earth's orbit is dominated by the Sun and we can ignore those very small factors. The overall temperature of the Earth is determined by a handful of major factors and the greenhouse effect is one of them.
 
2012-10-04 05:17:55 PM

Big Man On Campus: All of the follow-on studies to demonstrate that CO2 as a driver were taken from the standpoint that we had already "confirmed" CO2 as a driver. That itself would bias the results at least a little bit. More importantly, because our understanding of this complex system is so new, it's not just possible, but almost an established fact that our tools for understanding the climate are too crude to show us the entire picture. Again, clouds are not modelled correctly. Any climate simulation expert who is honest will tell you this. Nor is their effect on radiation balance, which would be an additional simulation on top of properly simulating their formation, lifecycle, and disspation, simulated properly on top of that. So yes, there are questions that are not being asked. The answers to these questions are being openly replaced with fudgy assumptions or best-guesses about how they work, not lengthy research. The scientists making these assumptions are not lying, they're caveating properly. But the activists (some of them scientists themselves) reading their research run all the way to the sirens with alarm about how we know for certain that we're all gonna die because we drive cars that are too big. Meanwhile the scientific community at large pats itself on the back for having these "properly bounded" simulations that are saving the world when in fact we've got nothing.


There's a problem with your 'activist scientist' theory here. And that is that novel approaches get attention. They get funding, and they get, most importantly, recognition. Ask any university public relation officer about what they choose to do a press release for and what they don't. Recognition for your institution means better funded studies, and attracts better scientists. Novel theories, not towing the line, is the holy grail in science. If you're just re-arranging the furniture, you aren't really going to get that, so there's no impetus NOT to pursue those other studies. There is funding out there for climate change research that does not involve focusing on CO2.
 
2012-10-04 05:21:14 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?


Sterilization, through vasectomy or tubal ligation.

/Yes, I would volunteer; I have no desire to reproduce.
 
2012-10-04 05:36:25 PM

Big Man On Campus: 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.


Spinning a proposal or choosing to do a certain study based on available grant money is not even close to the same thing as falsifying research.
 
2012-10-04 05:42:14 PM

make me some tea: Given the uncertainty, I firmly believe we need to wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel tit and invest in green tech and reduce our CO2 emissions. It just seems like common sense to me. I don't understand why there's so much drama about this issue.


People make money by selling you fossil fuel. They stop making money if you stop using it. Thus the drama.
 
2012-10-04 05:43:08 PM

Big Man On Campus:

The focus of study determines the result.



Not in real science.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report