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  
•       •       •

3983 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
 
2012-10-04 10:52:10 AM
But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.
 
2012-10-04 11:26:49 AM
I'm sorry, there can be no upside to global climate change. It can only be bad, all the time.
 
2012-10-04 12:26:14 PM
It's a great business plan - Shell helped create the very conditions that allow them to exploit more resources.
 
2012-10-04 12:28:45 PM

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


Right.

In order to access previously inaccessible resources - we end up creating feedback loops that expedite global warming. That's one of the reasons why climate change models are continually reformatting the time line - the degree to which a feedback loop will expedite the process depends on the intensity of the feedback loop.
 
2012-10-04 01:21:34 PM
It's a virtuous cycle. If you aren't a polar bear.

/And I'm not!
 
2012-10-04 01:24:15 PM
Climate change has enabled companies like Shell to pursue pollute previously inaccessible resources pristine ecosystems

FTFY

The melting of the ice caps can in no way be looked at as a positive development.
 
2012-10-04 01:24:58 PM
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.
 
2012-10-04 01:25:03 PM
Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?
 
2012-10-04 01:25:48 PM
Which will allow us to burn more fossil fuels and speed up the process!

Where is my carbon dioxide sequestration technology!!!! WHAR!!!!!
 
2012-10-04 01:26:27 PM

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?
 
2012-10-04 01:26:49 PM

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?
 
2012-10-04 01:27:21 PM
The biggest proof the globe is getting warmer is all the sabre rattling about Arctic borders and sovereignty we're getting from Canada, Russia, the US, etc...
 
2012-10-04 01:29:25 PM
How nice for them. We should pass the hat around and send them a congratulatory mpuffin basket.
 
2012-10-04 01:29:49 PM

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?
 
2012-10-04 01:29:53 PM
Some people might be calling this a bad thing, but those people are entirely neglecting the pointless uninformed debate that will arise on the internet as a result of this discovery.
 
2012-10-04 01:29:56 PM
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
 
2012-10-04 01:33:17 PM
Additional resources for humanity.... Sweet Mother of God, this is horrible!! EVERYBODY PANIC!!
 
2012-10-04 01:33:22 PM

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.
 
2012-10-04 01:33:43 PM

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


Except, no.
 
2012-10-04 01:33:44 PM

NutznGum: The biggest proof the globe is getting warmer is all the sabre rattling about Arctic borders and sovereignty we're getting from Canada, Russia, the US, etc...


PSSSTTTT.... its been getting warmer since the last ice age. Its like a cycle or something
 
2012-10-04 01:34:19 PM
Perhaps vampire is a bit strong but...
 
2012-10-04 01:34:39 PM

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.
 
2012-10-04 01:35:10 PM
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
 
2012-10-04 01:36:34 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?


Actually, this age is being called the "Anthropocene"
 
2012-10-04 01:36:55 PM

Bontesla: In order to access previously inaccessible resources - we end up creating feedback loops that expedite global warming. That's one of the reasons why climate change models are continually reformatting the time line - the degree to which a feedback loop will expedite the process depends on the intensity of the feedback loop.


You can't use logic and reason to change an opinion that wasn't formed using logic and reason in the first place.
 
2012-10-04 01:37:44 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.


That's it! Turn your hybrid in to the DNC immediately! Now you'll see what happens when you don't fall in line!

\\bought my ford focus for the same reasons, would have bought a hybrid had they been cheap enough.
 
2012-10-04 01:37:56 PM

gulogulo: 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?

Actually, this age is being called the "Anthropocene"


Good point.
 
2012-10-04 01:40:05 PM
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.
 
2012-10-04 01:41:02 PM

Captain Horatio Mindblower: It's a virtuous cycle. If you aren't a polar bear.

/And I'm not!


Hey, there are more polar bears than there were decades ago. We have to raise more of them, so we can harvest them for their oil.
 
2012-10-04 01:42:05 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.


So we had an ice age 200 years ago? WTF?
 
2012-10-04 01:42:05 PM
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.
 
2012-10-04 01:42:18 PM

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.
 
2012-10-04 01:43:35 PM

gulogulo: Actually, this age is being called the "Anthropocene"


Wat? Holocene wat?

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 01:43:57 PM

WelldeadLink: Captain Horatio Mindblower: It's a virtuous cycle. If you aren't a polar bear.

/And I'm not!

Hey, there are more polar bears than there were decades ago. We have to raise more of them, so we can harvest them for their oil.


The Chinese have bear bile farms (horrible, horrible business D: , and look it up if you have the stomach for that sort of thing) because -get this- bear bile is better than viagra.

Then again, bears kill themselves and their offspring in these places :C
 
2012-10-04 01:44:04 PM
It's also given Seattle awesome weather. Screw the rest of the planet! ;)
 
2012-10-04 01:45:09 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.


Either Road Warrior or Star Trek, nothing in between.
 
2012-10-04 01:45:37 PM
Persue rescources.
I like that.
As opposed to RAPE Rape
 
2012-10-04 01:45:39 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]


Two years? Four years.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-04 01:46:39 PM

Captain Horatio Mindblower: It's a virtuous cycle. If you aren't a polar bear.

/And I'm not!


lies!
 
2012-10-04 01:47:08 PM

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


Yes, but as the location where food can be grown changes (a lot of food producing region are experiencing long-term droughts) we will need to adapt quickly. Our systems have been so optimized for efficiency (low inventories) and we have monetized food in the form of commodities that we are ripe for food shortages and speculative price increases. Denying the problem only delays the implementation of proactive and reactive actions to protect our food supply.
 
2012-10-04 01:50:15 PM

jigger: 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.

Either Road Warrior or Star Trek, nothing in between.


Uh...yes it does.
 
2012-10-04 01:50:43 PM
But...but...but...

AAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRE!
 
2012-10-04 01:50:54 PM

nmemkha: I dunno, will cockroach societies have archaeologists?


I don't see why not.
 
2012-10-04 01:52:05 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: gulogulo: Actually, this age is being called the "Anthropocene"

Wat? Holocene wat?

[imageshack.us image 400x440]


http://www.economist.com/node/18741749

It's a newish term, starting to crop up in the scientific journals I read. Mostly Anthropology journals.
 
2012-10-04 01:52:19 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.


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
 
2012-10-04 01:52:49 PM

WelldeadLink: 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]

Two years? Four years.

[i.imgur.com image 641x419]


I say two, because the people are not gonna take it, and it only needs one CEO of a big company to die in order to get the shebang going.
 
2012-10-04 01:52:51 PM
"The end of the last ice age was a time of extreme and rapid climatic change. Global warming accelerated 10,000 years ago, triggering rapid changes in plant and animal life. The changeover from spruce to pine forest in our region was possibly witnessed by Paleo-Indian hunters in a single lifetime."

Wonder if there was a Paleo-Indian oil company to blame. Or Paleo-Indian Hummers.
 
2012-10-04 01:56:26 PM

jigger: 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.

Either Road Warrior or Star Trek, nothing in between.


Nonsense, we'll all have little fukushima's in our automobile engine compartments. Regular maintenance and safety upgrades will be optional.
 
2012-10-04 01:57:05 PM

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.'
 
2012-10-04 01:58:39 PM

tommydee: "The end of the last ice age was a time of extreme and rapid climatic change. Global warming accelerated 10,000 years ago, triggering rapid changes in plant and animal life. The changeover from spruce to pine forest in our region was possibly witnessed by Paleo-Indian hunters in a single lifetime."

Wonder if there was a Paleo-Indian oil company to blame. Or Paleo-Indian Hummers.


It was those darn buffalo and their flatulence. The indians clearly were trying to combat early climate change with their hunts.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-10-04 05:46:50 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: 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?


The solution to most of mankind's problems:

upload.wikimedia.org

Not only that, but it can rid us of some really icky diseases as well. Too bad those farking priests / mullahs / witchdoctors are doing everything they can to stop people from using them.
 
2012-10-04 05:58:00 PM

Uncle Tractor: 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.


Well yeah, obviously. Beyond those those people though...
 
2012-10-04 05:58:42 PM

gulogulo: 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.


They don't in climate science. In climate science, people who want to disprove CO2 as a primary driver are shouted down. Prove me wrong there and I might accept that you have a point. All I've seen thus far is almost outright libel against scientists who might investigate some alternative view.

It was the same in String theory. Scientists who wanted to research something different had trouble getting funding. It's just human nature, in the desire to have a simple and elegant answer, some subjects take hold too strongly in human imagination. It is purely a function of how much we want them to be true. That doesn't make them a real part of nature, however.

kriegsgeist: 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.


Doesn't have to be. If all you spend your money on is researching what soil is best for growing a particular plant, you might entirely miss everything else that's important like sunlight, water, availability of pollinators, etc... and conclude that soil alone drives plant growth. Proposals should be expected to be spun, it's basic advertisement. However when the flavor of money is only looking at one aspect of a problem then yes the scientists themselves have a hand in biasing the results of science at large.

kriegsgeist: Big Man On Campus:

The focus of study determines the result.

Not in real science.


Really? So studying flowers can unlock the secrets of star formation?
Yes, absolutely, the focus of study determines the result. Simply being contrarian because you disagree with me doesn't make your beliefs any more true.
 
2012-10-04 06:01:48 PM

Uncle Tractor: EVERYBODY PANIC: 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?

The solution to most of mankind's problems:



Not only that, but it can rid us of some really icky diseases as well. Too bad those farking priests / mullahs / witchdoctors are doing everything they can to stop people from using them.


Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.
 
2012-10-04 06:04:45 PM

Big Man On Campus: They don't in climate science. In climate science, people who want to disprove CO2 as a primary driver are shouted down. Prove me wrong there and I might accept that you have a point. All I've seen thus far is almost outright libel against scientists who might investigate some alternative view.


That's not true. Several authors in the mid 1990's came out with the theory concerning solar activity as the driver. It was published in reputable journals, and reached a wide audience. Obviously they were given their due credit, but when it was challenged it didn't hold up. It's not like there haven't been attempts to look at other drivers, like water vapor or methane driving the system. There was no 'libelous' claims, though. Where are you seeing that in reputable scientific circles?
 
2012-10-04 06:07:02 PM

Baryogenesis: 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.


That's a talking point that was repeated to you somewhere, but it has no basis in reality whatsoever. When you remove influencing factors, your error-bars simply grow. In the case of worldwide aggregate temperature 50 years from now, they likely grow exponentially with the removal of dependent variables. It's amazing to me that people can believe in "the butterfly effect" but then believe that the worlds temperature can be predicted within 0.1C 100 years from now... stunning really.
 
2012-10-04 06:12:22 PM

gulogulo: That's not true. Several authors in the mid 1990's came out with the theory concerning solar activity as the driver. It was published in reputable journals, and reached a wide audience. Obviously they were given their due credit, but when it was challenged it didn't hold up. It's not like there haven't been attempts to look at other drivers, like water vapor or methane driving the system. There was no 'libelous' claims, though. Where are you seeing that in reputable scientific circles?


I'm talking post 1990s. And discrediting their study doesn't discredit the theory. In the mid-1990s, Hansens speeches were still sinking in.

I'm not going to dive into the subjectivity of what makes a scientific circle "reputable", so I'm not going to respond to that query. Suffice it to say that if you really want to pretend that you didn't know there isn't an absolute political/PR war going on between established climate scientists and other scientists (Yes there are scientists) who disagree on this subject all over the web, well then in the words of John McClain, welcome to the party pal.
 
2012-10-04 06:16:39 PM
oh, it's this thread again.
 
2012-10-04 06:17:38 PM

Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: That's not true. Several authors in the mid 1990's came out with the theory concerning solar activity as the driver. It was published in reputable journals, and reached a wide audience. Obviously they were given their due credit, but when it was challenged it didn't hold up. It's not like there haven't been attempts to look at other drivers, like water vapor or methane driving the system. There was no 'libelous' claims, though. Where are you seeing that in reputable scientific circles?

I'm talking post 1990s. And discrediting their study doesn't discredit the theory. In the mid-1990s, Hansens speeches were still sinking in.

I'm not going to dive into the subjectivity of what makes a scientific circle "reputable", so I'm not going to respond to that query. Suffice it to say that if you really want to pretend that you didn't know there isn't an absolute political/PR war going on between established climate scientists and other scientists (Yes there are scientists) who disagree on this subject all over the web, well then in the words of John McClain, welcome to the party pal.


Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?
 
2012-10-04 06:23:42 PM
make me some tea:....

Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.

Probably because it's not the #1 issue facing our species. Our inability to live in sustainable ways is the #1 issue facing our species.

And no, buying a prius and using reusable bags has nothing to do with the scale/scope of how much we need to change to live as a species in a sustainable way.
 
2012-10-04 06:24:40 PM
HOLY CRAP! An entire *DECADE*'s worth of oil! That's roughly two terms. Drill baby drill!
 
2012-10-04 06:27:08 PM

gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?


You know, those scientists who disagree on this subject ... the ones engaging in a PR war, getting posted all over the web. Nobody has ever heard of them.

Seriously, boo hoo. A group of scientists disagrees publicly with another group of scientists. The horror!
 
2012-10-04 06:31:01 PM

gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.
 
2012-10-04 06:35:28 PM
Andddddd so far all this" melting" over the last one hundred years has raised the ocean level....one...inch...so excuse my complete lack of panic.
 
2012-10-04 06:36:30 PM

Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.


How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?
 
2012-10-04 06:38:29 PM
media.giantbomb.com

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill." ~ CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"
 
2012-10-04 06:39:48 PM

HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?


Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".
 
2012-10-04 06:46:09 PM

Ambitwistor: HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?

Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".


exactly.
 
2012-10-04 06:48:29 PM

Big Man On Campus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen


From the wiki article you linked:

"According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001[7], and offered more support in a 2009 paper[44], but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen's theory discredited." Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in an interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." .[59]"
 
2012-10-04 06:49:18 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.


Hi, EatTheWorld here.

I say the world is full of resource for US. Lets use it. Your pessimism is sad, and your truths are wrong. Profit made someone sell you the device you just posted with asshat. turn it off, return to store, move out into the woods.
 
2012-10-04 06:56:24 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?


Try: the Age of Stupid

/good movie by the way, feel free to pirate it
 
2012-10-04 07:01:33 PM

HighZoolander: Ambitwistor: HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?

Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".

exactly.


It is interesting that "balance" is put in quotes in that sentence, all while you guys are trying to demonstrate that someone's ideas are being treated fairly. It speaks to a hypocrisy in the mind that you seem to have.
 
2012-10-04 07:05:20 PM

gulogulo: From the wiki article you linked:


Saw it, know it, point?
 
2012-10-04 07:10:19 PM

some_beer_drinker: oh, it's this thread again.


oh, it's this comment again
 
2012-10-04 07:14:09 PM

Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: From the wiki article you linked:

Saw it, know it, point?


A.) He is studying other things beyond the CO2 issues, and is getting coverage for it (reputable scientific circles.)
B.) He also accepts the CO2 hypothesis, which you seem to be implying is wrong merely because it's the popular theory.

So, you have yet to show me a scientist with radically different view that is being censored. Last time I checked, it's the climate deniars here in the U.S. that have consistently had the upper hand in policy.
 
2012-10-04 07:14:28 PM

Big Man On Campus: HighZoolander: Ambitwistor: HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?

Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".

exactly.

It is interesting that "balance" is put in quotes in that sentence, all while you guys are trying to demonstrate that someone's ideas are being treated fairly. It speaks to a hypocrisy in the mind that you seem to have.


I don't think fairness means equal time for all ideas, though that's a model that certain "balanced" media organizations seem to follow. It's not hypocrisy to suggest that a minority view (that's largely been discredited or abandoned) doesn't need to have equal time with more viable viewpoints.
 
2012-10-04 07:40:10 PM
ironic tag surrenders
 
2012-10-04 07:45:49 PM
Shell to pursue previously inaccessible resources; Like the loose change in my sofa.
 
2012-10-04 07:49:05 PM

MrSteve007: 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.


Well, that earns Joe Blowme an automatic spot on my ignore list, then. Faking data to make a poor argument is about as useless as you can get. Nothing but an intentional effort to drop the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread.
 
2012-10-04 08:04:12 PM

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

Goddammit.


That's about all.
 
2012-10-04 08:29:45 PM
Stop driving and heating and cooling your houses, then stop using and/or purchasing and/or consuming all products that require liquid fossil fuels to grow, produce, process, manufacture, or transport.

Get back to me on how that works out for you, mm-kay?
 
2012-10-04 08:33:41 PM
//Bakken oil boom CDL Hazmat oil and fracking water hauler earning $100K laughs at this thread.
 
2012-10-04 08:46:05 PM

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

Goddammit.


No one has ever claimed climate change isn´t happening, they claimed it wasn't man made.

Well, then they got confused by their derp and just said climate change wasn't happening flat out.

shiat.
 
2012-10-04 08:53:58 PM

MrSteve007: Joe Blowme:
[thecynicaleconomist.com image 299x400]
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 image 400x527]
[img.timeinc.net image 400x527]


img.timeinc.net

Why, look at that.

IRQ12: make me some tea:....
Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.
Probably because it's not the #1 issue facing our species. Our inability to live in sustainable ways is the #1 issue facing our species.
And no, buying a prius and using reusable bags has nothing to do with the scale/scope of how much we need to change to live as a species in a sustainable way.


You are so, so, right.
 
2012-10-04 09:19:33 PM

spawn73: No one has ever claimed climate change isn´t happening, they claimed it wasn't man made.

Well, then they got confused by their derp and just said climate change wasn't happening flat out.

shiat.


I think denying it's happening and denying it's man-made come and go periodically. Kind of a denial natural cycle.
 
2012-10-04 09:36:45 PM

make me some tea: Uncle Tractor: 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.

Well yeah, obviously. Beyond those those people though...


Beyond those people are the people who refuse to change they lifestyles they lead because those lifestyles are dependent on fossil fuels. They feel somehow it's their gawd given right as americans to use whatever they can pay for, because fu(k you that's why.

And beyond THOSE people are morans who somehow feel that the bullsh*t from shills for corporations which makes billions for their industry is more reputable than the facts and science from relatively poorly paid scientists who've spent hundreds of man-years or more collectively studying this. Reading is for fa&&ots and all that.

And even beyond THOSE people are the uber-morans who see the end of the world coming soon and that their particular deity will fix everything, so it doesn't matter how badly humans fu(k sh*t up.
 
2012-10-04 10:35:18 PM

rewind2846: Beyond those people are the people who refuse to change they lifestyles they lead because those lifestyles are dependent on fossil fuels. They feel somehow it's their gawd given right as americans to use whatever they can pay for, because fu(k you that's why.
And beyond THOSE people are morans who somehow feel that the bullsh*t from shills for corporations which makes billions for their industry is more reputable than the facts and science from relatively poorly paid scientists who've spent hundreds of man-years or more collectively studying this. Reading is for fa&&ots and all that.
And even beyond THOSE people are the uber-morans who see the end of the world coming soon and that their particular deity will fix everything, so it doesn't matter how badly humans fu(k sh*t up.


You forgot the people who think that we're going to fly to the stars, (and the sooner the better), so who cares what we do to this planet? It is our destiny to leave here anyway.
 
2012-10-04 11:08:35 PM
What you people don't seem to realize is my vette and rx-7 use a lot of gas.
 
2012-10-04 11:35:43 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: //Bakken oil boom CDL Hazmat oil and fracking water hauler earning $100K laughs at this thread.


You forgot The Chesapeake Bay: Humans didn't do that. Svensmark of Denmark, biatches!
 
2012-10-05 12:41:42 AM
A benefit of climate change. GO Shell.
 
2012-10-05 03:15:36 AM

doubled99: And yet people love to yammer on about why it's supposedly a bad. thing


You don't know what albedo is, do you?
 
2012-10-05 03:27:23 AM

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 ...


Bad things happen when you funnel science through the popular media. I'm surprised you don't know this, but, kudoes for being proud of it...I guess.
 
2012-10-05 03:53:26 AM

Big Man On Campus: Baryogenesis: 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.

That's a talking point that was repeated to you somewhere, but it has no basis in reality whatsoever. When you remove influencing factors, your error-bars simply grow. In the case of worldwide aggregate temperature 50 years from now, they likely grow exponentially with the removal of dependent variables. It's amazing to me that people can believe in "the butterfly effect" but then believe that the worlds temperature can be predicted within 0.1C 100 years from now... stunning really.


Climate scientists don't need every minute detail of the land, air and oceans to make general predictions about warming over the next few decades. Link

You can't just say other factors need to be taken into account without explaining why they would have an effect on warming. You can't just say CO2 is being illegitimately favored by climate scientists as the main human climate forcing without explaining why such a view is incorrect. You seem to be assuming CO2 isn't the answer instead of explaining why and then providing a good alternative explanation.

What are the primary drivers of short term warming? How would ENSO or cloud cover negate the warming produced over the next 100 years by a doubling of atmospheric CO2? Why would ENSO affect warming trends instead of the reverse? Why do you think no one is doing research on cloud feedback?
 
2012-10-05 06:52:10 AM

PunGent: Bad things happen when you funnel science through the popular media. I'm surprised you don't know this, but, kudoes for being proud of it...I guess.


So you really think your deflection from the purpose of posting those quotes from leading media outlets showing how WRONG! the prognosticators have been is a working solution to losing the argument?
I think not.

/How to Have a "Science Career" in the USSA: Create an emergency, then sponsor research to save us from that emergency.
 
2012-10-05 06:56:26 AM

cryinoutloud: You forgot the people who think that we're going to fly to the stars, (and the sooner the better), so who cares what we do to this planet? It is our destiny to leave here anyway.


Yes, so we can destroy some other place far, far away.
Humans have as much chance of getting off the planet as whales do of flying.
 
2012-10-05 07:04:34 AM

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



As god is my witness, it wasn't a dinosaur....... it was a manatee.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:46 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: /How to Have a "Science Career" in the USSA: Create an emergency, then sponsor research to save us from that emergency.


Says someone who doesn't work in science. I'm SO getting rich off my money and power.

Psst. Do you know how much more money the oil companies have to fund science to counter global climate change? If a scientist really wanted to rake it in, that's who you would be targeting for grants.
 
2012-10-05 08:20:56 AM
Threads like this just confirm for me the scientific knowledge 'deficit' in the American public. Our education system has failed in properly teaching the sciences when people can say with a straight face that because there was climate change in the earth's past it will pose no problems for us now.
 
2012-10-05 08:34:34 AM

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


humour

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


serious

jake_lex: 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?


radical

Abuse Liability: 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.


sensible


meh.
 
2012-10-05 09:16:30 AM

Baryogenesis: In the case of worldwide aggregate temperature 50 years from now, they likely grow exponentially with the removal of dependent variables. It's amazing to me that people can believe in "the butterfly effect" but then believe that the worlds temperature can be predicted within 0.1C 100 years from now... stunning really.

Climate scientists don't need every minute detail of the land, air and oceans to make general predictions about warming over the next few decades. Link


In fact, it's physically impossible for error bars on global temperature to grow "exponentially", even in a chaotic system, due to basic physics like energy conservation . The lesson from stochastic climate models is that the error envelope saturates to a finite limit, given by a combination of uncertainty in physical parameters and stochastic weather/chaos uncertainty.

Anybody who yammers on about how chaos theory means uncertainty about some statistical average becomes arbitrarily large have no idea what they're talking about. A major lesson of chaos theory is that while states may diverge exponentially, their ensemble behavior remains near an attractor.
 
2012-10-05 09:45:26 AM

reported: It's a great business plan - Shell helped create the very conditions that allow them to exploit more resources.


The rape victim had twin girls!
 
2012-10-05 09:47:30 AM

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?


The chocolate ration has ALWAYS been 20 grams a week. You could look it up.

cache.gawker.com
 
2012-10-05 09:57:15 AM

IRQ12: make me some tea:....

Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.

Probably because it's not the #1 issue facing our species. Our inability to live in sustainable ways is the #1 issue facing our species.

And no, buying a prius and using reusable bags has nothing to do with the scale/scope of how much we need to change to live as a species in a sustainable way.


But because of that inability, we could buy a few decades of think time with a nice 50% mortality plague, no?

This planet looks pretty sweet at 3.5 billion and holding. Maybe the 800 gorillas still uneaten in the Congo could get up to a thousand or so in 20 years. Maybe the rhinos shot because impotent Chinese can't pronounce "Viagra" could reproduce from "critical" to "vulnerable".

Win-win.
 
2012-10-05 10:14:47 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: PunGent: Bad things happen when you funnel science through the popular media. I'm surprised you don't know this, but, kudoes for being proud of it...I guess.

So you really think your deflection from the purpose of posting those quotes from leading media outlets showing how WRONG! the prognosticators have been is a working solution to losing the argument?
I think not.

/How to Have a "Science Career" in the USSA: Create an emergency, then sponsor research to save us from that emergency.


You're not real bright, are you?
 
2012-10-05 10:39:22 AM

gulogulo: Threads like this just confirm for me the scientific knowledge 'deficit' in the American public. Our education system has failed in properly teaching the sciences when people can say with a straight face that because there was climate change in the earth's past it will pose no problems for us now.


I always wondered how the enlightened citizens of Krypton could be so stupid as to not believe their own sun was about to go nova when the raw evidence was right there staring at them in the face.

Now I understand.
 
2012-10-05 03:22:40 PM

Valiente: 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?

The chocolate ration has ALWAYS been 20 grams a week. You could look it up.

[cache.gawker.com image 500x368]


But was it lowered to 20, or raised to 20?

/4 fingers
 
Displayed 206 of 206 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report