Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

Shyrka posted:

After watching this, I gotta ask - Do all the models of our increasing temperatures take ocean methane release into account? Since if +4C is the best case scenario, that's still hot enough to release methane and bump us up to +10C or so. If we hit +10C all on our own and methane makes it +15C... well, we're hosed any way you want to play it.

IPCC 5 ignores permafrost, and it's received criticism for that (another article here).

Part of IPCC 4 went into methane release from hydates and permafrost. However, I don't believe that information was included in their simulations.

This article says,

quote:

Furthermore, as of 2011, no climate model incorporates the effects of methane released from melting permafrost, suggesting that even the most extreme climate scenarios in the models might not be extreme enough.

So while permafrost melting and methane release has been studied, it hasn't actually been included in any of the big models predicting future climate change.

# ? Jan 26, 2013 18:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 03:40

Shyrka: Feb 10, 2005; Small Boss likes to spin!

Uranium Phoenix posted:

IPCC 5 ignores permafrost, and it's received criticism for that (another article here).

Part of IPCC 4 went into methane release from hydates and permafrost. However, I don't believe that information was included in their simulations.

This article says,

So while permafrost melting and methane release has been studied, it hasn't actually been included in any of the big models predicting future climate change.

So what it boils down to is that all our best case estimates are actually as bad as our worst case estimates if that gets taken into account, and our worst case is just off the loving chart?

It's all I can do not to just huddle in the corner chanting 'Game over, man.' now. We're looking at going completely over and above the 95% extinction rate of the Permian Mass in only a hundred years. Watching loving Threads is less depressing than thinking about this, at least with a nuclear apocalypse in the 1980s we'd have preserved the planet in a far better state than what we're pushing towards now.

# ? Jan 26, 2013 18:51

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

Shyrka posted:

So what it boils down to is that all our best case estimates are actually as bad as our worst case estimates if that gets taken into account, and our worst case is just off the loving chart?

It's all I can do not to just huddle in the corner chanting 'Game over, man.' now. We're looking at going completely over and above the 95% extinction rate of the Permian Mass in only a hundred years. Watching loving Threads is less depressing than thinking about this, at least with a nuclear apocalypse in the 1980s we'd have preserved the planet in a far better state than what we're pushing towards now.

A nuclear apocalypse would still be far worse.

Try not to let a grim outlook on climate be depressing. Look at it as a call to action to do something. As an individual, we can't do much. But each individual adds up, and together we can make a difference.

# ? Jan 26, 2013 19:15

MrOnBicycle: Jan 18, 2008; Wait wat?

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918

A Norwegian study finds that the evidence for man-made climate change is stronger than ever, but they also found that the effects are less extreme than thought. They also expect that the IPCC will have the same findings when their report is published as a result of the measuring models getting more accurate.

They also add:

quote:

Climate issues must be dealt with

Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project�s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.

MrOnBicycle fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jan 26, 2013

# ? Jan 26, 2013 21:10

CaptainFisby: Jan 21, 2002; Pequeno Gao Gao

MrOnBicycle posted:

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918

A Norwegian study finds that the evidence for man-made climate change is stronger than ever, but they also found that the effects are less extreme than thought. They also expect that the IPCC will have the same findings when their report is published as a result of the measuring models getting more accurate.

They also add:

I do hope this is the case. From what I have read (though not being a scientist) it seems most organizations have seemed to underestimate or even play down the damage climate change could do as not to appear "apocalyptic" or hysterical. It would, on one hand, be refreshing to know we can still keep the temperature rise down, but also discouraging as I know that this study would also be cherry picked by others into saying how overblown climate change has been overall.

# ? Jan 26, 2013 21:37

UP AND ADAM: Jan 24, 2007; by Pragmatica

There's still so much wrong with the constant striving for economic growth and utilization of nonrenewable resources, the destruction of natural habitats and biodiversity, and the attitudes and lobbying forces that keep environmental externalities from being even discussed (in places like the US, at least). Maybe if these feedback mechanisms give us another hundred years or so of unfettered capitalism and fossil fuel burning we can transition to a dream energy source.

Using a ten year span to completely alter the model of temperatures from hundreds of years ago, though, seems a bit hasty maybe? I'm not a grad student or anything, so I'd love to see someone here or in another article speak on this paper when it comes out.

# ? Jan 26, 2013 23:34

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

MrOnBicycle posted:

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918

A Norwegian study finds that the evidence for man-made climate change is stronger than ever, but they also found that the effects are less extreme than thought. They also expect that the IPCC will have the same findings when their report is published as a result of the measuring models getting more accurate.

They also add:

It would be nice to see a paper or some of the actual data. It's hard for me to believe that the warming of the last decade somehow obviously indicates that the climate is much less sensitive to carbon emissions than previously believed and that everyone for the last 3 years has totally missed that. There's no suggestion for a mechanism either besides "the oceans", which is weird because I'm pretty sure the oceans as a carbon sink have been extensively studied and no one's been saying "hey guys the oceans are sinking twice as much carbon in the 21st century as they were in the 20th"

# ? Jan 26, 2013 23:59

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

MrOnBicycle posted:

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918

A Norwegian study finds that the evidence for man-made climate change is stronger than ever, but they also found that the effects are less extreme than thought. They also expect that the IPCC will have the same findings when their report is published as a result of the measuring models getting more accurate.

1.9�C by 2050 is still really bad, and that still puts us right on track for 4-6�C by 2100, especially if nothing substantial continues to be done while emissions increase.

Also, maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but this graph makes it look like 1.9�C by 2050 is right on the average estimate for both the A1B and A2 scenarios, so I'm not entirely sure why the article is saying that this estimate is somehow under the IPCC reports':

From IPCC 4

(Scenarios, remember, that don't take into account things like the permafrost melting and are probably low-balling it).

# ? Jan 27, 2013 08:02

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

Uranium Phoenix posted:

1.9�C by 2050 is still really bad, and that still puts us right on track for 4-6�C by 2100, especially if nothing substantial continues to be done while emissions increase.

Also, maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but this graph makes it look like 1.9�C by 2050 is right on the average estimate for both the A1B and A2 scenarios, so I'm not entirely sure why the article is saying that this estimate is somehow under the IPCC reports':

From IPCC 4

(Scenarios, remember, that don't take into account things like the permafrost melting and are probably low-balling it).

Our cumulative emissions curve is tracking above A1F1 though, I think.

# ? Jan 27, 2013 09:16

MrOnBicycle: Jan 18, 2008; Wait wat?

Paper Mac posted:

It would be nice to see a paper or some of the actual data. It's hard for me to believe that the warming of the last decade somehow obviously indicates that the climate is much less sensitive to carbon emissions than previously believed and that everyone for the last 3 years has totally missed that. There's no suggestion for a mechanism either besides "the oceans", which is weird because I'm pretty sure the oceans as a carbon sink have been extensively studied and no one's been saying "hey guys the oceans are sinking twice as much carbon in the 21st century as they were in the 20th"

Yeah I'd like to see them publishing the paper as well. Not that it's much to go by (as in only one person) but in a follow up article they interview Caroline Leck who is "a professor of chemical meteorology at Stockholm University and has been part of both the UN climate panel, the IPCC, and the Swedish government's scientific advice on climate issues.":

quote:

She describes the findings as sensational and that, if confirmed by other studies, could have far-reaching implications for the achievement of the political climate goals.

- It is extremely complex to calculate the climate effects and this study belongs to a generation of new projects that have received a lot of resources and using sophisticated methods. I have reviewed the project and it is in my opinion, impressive, not least because it took into account a lot of data and also data from the most recent years, says Caroline Leck.

quote:

Do you think that the IPCC will lower its forecast?

- IPCC comes with a new report in the autumn and there will likely be a reduction too. It reflects that researchers increasingly refines the calculation models, says Caroline Leck.

The conclusion is that it is clearer than ever that humans affect climate, but that this impact while less than previously thought. Some of the warming observed hanging up instead with natural variations.

- Even with this lower temperature rise, it is imperative to take action, especially on the emission side where there is currently nothing happens, but also through extensive training, says Caroline Leck.

# ? Jan 27, 2013 10:07

snowball39: Feb 23, 2011

MrOnBicycle posted:

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918

A Norwegian study finds that the evidence for man-made climate change is stronger than ever, but they also found that the effects are less extreme than thought. They also expect that the IPCC will have the same findings when their report is published as a result of the measuring models getting more accurate.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/weaker-global-warming-seen-in-study-promoted-by-norways-research-council/

Apparently this was just a promotion of a study that was published in February 2012: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2140/abstract

The study seems a bit odd. When they include a feedback effect that they for some reason left out, their mean climate sensitivity estimate for a doubling of CO2 jumps to 3.3 degrees C from 2.0. I'm not well-versed enough in the methodology they're using to really critique what they're doing, but whatever model they're using seems really sensitive to small changes. It should be taken as one data point, nothing more.

Also, the IPCC AR5 already got leaked, and it still said 2.0-4.5 degrees for a doubling with 3.0 as the most likely value.

# ? Jan 27, 2013 19:25

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

MrOnBicycle posted:

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918

A Norwegian study finds that the evidence for man-made climate change is stronger than ever, but they also found that the effects are less extreme than thought. They also expect that the IPCC will have the same findings when their report is published as a result of the measuring models getting more accurate.

They also add:

Yeah, watts and the physics denialism crowd (I say lets start calling the devil by its name) have really latched onto this one and are claiming it means that the science is on their side now blah blah and so on.

# ? Jan 27, 2013 19:32

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Uranium Phoenix posted:

Try not to let a grim outlook on climate be depressing. Look at it as a call to action to do something. As an individual, we can't do much. But each individual adds up, and together we can make a difference.

Unfortunately, we can confidently say that such action will not be taken. At the very best, the rate of increase of emissions might decrease somewhat. Because it's easy for those with economic/political power to avoid the consequences of climate change, they will be unwilling to take action. Even if you ignore that, our economic system requires growth.

The fact that it can be hard/impossible to predict the actions of a given individual does not mean that it's impossible to predict the actions of society as a whole. It's entirely possible to predict the way large groups of people will act.

# ? Jan 27, 2013 20:34

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

snowball39 posted:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/weaker-global-warming-seen-in-study-promoted-by-norways-research-council/

Apparently this was just a promotion of a study that was published in February 2012: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2140/abstract

The study seems a bit odd. When they include a feedback effect that they for some reason left out, their mean climate sensitivity estimate for a doubling of CO2 jumps to 3.3 degrees C from 2.0. I'm not well-versed enough in the methodology they're using to really critique what they're doing, but whatever model they're using seems really sensitive to small changes. It should be taken as one data point, nothing more.

Also, the IPCC AR5 already got leaked, and it still said 2.0-4.5 degrees for a doubling with 3.0 as the most likely value.

Here's what my institutional subscription for the journal looks like:

The paper is in Vol.23 Issue 3 :raise:

Is there a pdf kicking around?

# ? Jan 27, 2013 23:45

snowball39: Feb 23, 2011

Paper Mac posted:

Here's what my institutional subscription for the journal looks like:

The paper is in Vol.23 Issue 3 Is there a pdf kicking around?

Here's one.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2140/pdf

# ? Jan 27, 2013 23:52

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

snowball39 posted:

Here's one.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2140/pdf

I'm don't have subscriber access to the DOI because 3 issues from 2012 are mysteriously missing from my institution's subscription, and I'm not paying Wiley $50 or whatever they charge for access to a paper published in a journal with an impact factor of 1. There's what looks like a powerpoint stack of a presentation the group gave on the topic here:

http://www.newton.ac.uk/programmes/CLP/seminars/120812001.pdf

for anyone who's interested and similarly without access to the paper itself.

Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jan 28, 2013

# ? Jan 28, 2013 00:03

toy: Apr 19, 2001

here it is
http://sharesend.com/adixte7a

# ? Jan 28, 2013 03:32

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

toy posted:

here it is
http://sharesend.com/adixte7a

Cool, thanks. I'm not going to bother commenting on directly on the paper because I don't understand the mathematical modelling component, but I find it odd the institution is doing press releases about a publication in a pretty obscure journal that was published almost a year ago. Grant season in Norway?

It looks like the paper doesn't overtly make the arguments that the press release makes, either.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 04:15

seniorservice: Jun 18, 2004; Wubba Lubba Dub Dub!

Guess what's on the front page of foxnews!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/

I love how their first source is "bloggers." What a lovely excuse for a news organization.

# ? Jan 29, 2013 08:36

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

seniorservice posted:

Guess what's on the front page of foxnews!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/

I love how their first source is "bloggers." What a lovely excuse for a news organization.

The article's 2nd source is a scientist though! They somehow managed to land respected climatologist Roy Spencer. Check out this quote of his they used for the article:

quote:

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Oh wait thats not the quote they used? Hold on I think it was this one actually:

quote:

�Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,�

...

�Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,� Spencer said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Jan 29, 2013

# ? Jan 29, 2013 08:51

Zaburino: Jul 22, 2006; ...

The Wikipedia title should be Roy Spencer ("Scientist")

# ? Jan 29, 2013 17:46

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

seniorservice posted:

Guess what's on the front page of foxnews!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/

I love how their first source is "bloggers." What a lovely excuse for a news organization.

The story is true, though, and the story reads fair to me as both Huertas and Spencer get equal time and make equally valid points.

The source is not bloggers; the source is the draft of the UN's AR5 report. The draft UN report (the links to each chapter were posted here a few pages back) shows that the climate models have overestimated warming. It's an inescapable mathematical fact. This has been true with every single UN report thus far: FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4. I made an OP to this effect some years ago and have been saying it ever since. And on that same note, sea levels are not rising as anticipated as of yet either (although 2011 and 2012 both had sharp increases after sea levels declined in 2010).

Meanwhile, though, CO2 is increasing at a faster pace than expected (sup China), which shows either that natural causes are dampening warming effects (aerosols, solar, ENSO, what have you) or that the underlying assumptions of strong positive feedback is wrong or exaggerated. I point this out at a lot but it's worth repeating: each new molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect on global climate. The CO2 in and of itself will not warm the planet to a dangerous point any time soon; positive feedbacks, however, could warm the planet to a dangerous degree if accurate. These revolve around changes to cloud cover and reflectivity of the earth (amongst other things) that amplify the warming. Changes in cloud cover remains a bone of contention, as it has for years. Whether these positive feedback assumptions that the climate models rely upon are right or wrong is not remotely clear yet.

If the very recent trends (10 years of little warming, ~35 years of .17/decade C) relative to modeled predictions are indicative of future warmth, we are certainly severely exaggerating the risk. Hence the reason that I have scoffed at some of the apocalypse planning in this thread.

# ? Jan 29, 2013 22:45

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Yeah ok, you still are not reading the thread.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 01:16

menino: Jul 27, 2006; Pon De Floor

Sorry if this has been discussed, but what effect does larger standard deviations have? If it's 60 today and 20 tomorrow, it averages to 40, but wouldn't that be more 'traumatic' to local plant/microbiology than a 38 day and a 42 day.

I know I'm really talking about weather here, but that's just an example. Has this been observed or am I just intuiting from anecdotal evidence? Is there a term for this?

# ? Jan 30, 2013 01:33

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

menino posted:

Sorry if this has been discussed, but what effect does larger standard deviations have? If it's 60 today and 20 tomorrow, it averages to 40, but wouldn't that be more 'traumatic' to local plant/microbiology than a 38 day and a 42 day.

I know I'm really talking about weather here, but that's just an example. Has this been observed or am I just intuiting from anecdotal evidence? Is there a term for this?

Variability in temperature is something that most biological systems deal with reasonably well, but there are limits, and it's definitely the case that wild temperature swings make processes like crop germination much less successful. If you're asking whether increased variability in temperature is expected as a consquence of climate change, All Signs Point To Yes.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 02:32

Uranium Phoenix: Jun 20, 2007; Boom.

Arkane posted:

...or that the underlying assumptions of strong positive feedback is wrong or exaggerated. I point this out at a lot but it's worth repeating: each new molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect on global climate. The CO2 in and of itself will not warm the planet to a dangerous point any time soon; positive feedbacks, however, could warm the planet to a dangerous degree if accurate.

I'm curious, at what timescale do you believe positive feedback cycles could warm the planet to a dangerous degree? 100 years? 200 years?

Arkane posted:

If the very recent trends (10 years of little warming, ~35 years of .17/decade C) relative to modeled predictions are indicative of future warmth, we are certainly severely exaggerating the risk. Hence the reason that I have scoffed at some of the apocalypse planning in this thread.

Even a modest .17/decade C rise in temperature brings us to 1.7 degrees per century. ~+2 degrees C by 2100 is still bad, and with the positive feedback cycles you mentioned, it could be even higher even based on your low (and linear) estimates. Eventually, I think you'll agree, carbon emissions need to be reigned in. Do you believe we need to cease burning coal? When? Revamp our world infrastructure? How and on what time scale? What alternate energy do you think is realistic--solar? Wind? Tidal? Nuclear?

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:36

JBark: Jun 27, 2000; Good passwords are a good idea.

duck monster posted:

Yeah ok, you still are not reading the thread.

More like didn't even read the article he himself posted, which points to a recently published paper that shows temperatures have matched up quite well with IPCC predictions, and sea level rise has been above predictions.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

quote:

We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Ni�o/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.

Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-months running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the third assessment, green from the fourth assessment report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993�2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000.

Though I can't figure out why this is coming up again now, when the leak was over a month ago?

# ? Jan 30, 2013 06:08

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

What do folks think about this;-

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

Not a scientific reference, but whatever, the meat of it;-

quote:

As the latest round of United Nations climate talks in Doha wrap up this week, climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC�s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.This conservative bias, say some scientists, could have significant political implications, as reports from the group � the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change � influence policy and planning decisions worldwide, from national governments down to local town councils.

This matches something my sister used to say about conservative biases permeating the climate research bureaucracy where scientists feel compelled to understate the risks because of the sorts of threats and cajoling climate researchers recieve from conservative political interests and funding bodies, and frankly the fact that writing "alarming" reports gets your funding pulled, whereas privately many climate researchers believe we might be actually in fairly serious trouble. Her own experience involved her work with ground water modelling in regards to climate change, and her and her collegues where repeatedly told to rewrite conclusions to avoid "disturbing predictions" despite fairly clear data showing potential loss of agricultural land due to the impacts of climate change on ground water salinity. To this date that research hasn't been published, and her and most of her colleagues have resigned in frusturation. Now granted this was during the John Howard regime where the government was fairly seriously theatening research funding that produced "alarmist" results, but from my understanding this has been the experience also with her US collegues too. She's working in the UK now and hasn't been reporting similar hassle, but she's working in the private sector as an environmental consultant now and kind of keen on keeping her head low for career based reasons. I'd like her to speak out but yeah, probably won't happen

Now keeping all this in mind, remember to punch the next person who tells you climate change scientists are "alarmists" who are doing it for funding. Its pure loving revisionism.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 14:47

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

duck monster posted:

What do folks think about this;-

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

Not a scientific reference, but whatever, the meat of it;-

This matches something my sister used to say about conservative biases permeating the climate research bureaucracy where scientists feel compelled to understate the risks because of the sorts of threats and cajoling climate researchers recieve from conservative political interests and funding bodies, and frankly the fact that writing "alarming" reports gets your funding pulled, whereas privately many climate researchers believe we might be actually in fairly serious trouble. Her own experience involved her work with ground water modelling in regards to climate change, and her and her collegues where repeatedly told to rewrite conclusions to avoid "disturbing predictions" despite fairly clear data showing potential loss of agricultural land due to the impacts of climate change on ground water salinity. To this date that research hasn't been published, and her and most of her colleagues have resigned in frusturation. Now granted this was during the John Howard regime where the government was fairly seriously theatening research funding that produced "alarmist" results, but from my understanding this has been the experience also with her US collegues too. She's working in the UK now and hasn't been reporting similar hassle, but she's working in the private sector as an environmental consultant now and kind of keen on keeping her head low for career based reasons. I'd like her to speak out but yeah, probably won't happen

Now keeping all this in mind, remember to punch the next person who tells you climate change scientists are "alarmists" who are doing it for funding. Its pure loving revisionism.

No one who has ever said "just follow the money, man" or "the more scientists publish scary results predicting the imminent collapse of industrial society, the more money they get" has ever applied for a grant or worked on a scientific project. IMO one of the greatest failures of scientists over the last few decades has been in outreach- almost no one knows who pays us or why, anything about the granting process, etc. It's just a black box which people's fears and neuroses get projected on, as a result.

As for the claim in that article, that's a pretty widely held view AFAIK. There's a widespread policy commitment to scenarios that will keep us "around" 2 deg C warming, and an increasingly widespread scientific view that that is a) no longer possible or b) cannot be done without decarbonising large chunks of the global economy basically immediately. "Everyone figure out how to stop burning fossil fuels in the next 10 years or so, after which you're cut off" is not a super-popular policy commitment, so the result is the demand for fantasy-science reports that claim it's still possible to meet whatever the target happens to be.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 17:27

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Yeah. In my Sisters case, she was working for the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), which is australias peak govt science research body, doing something or other with DOLA (Dept of lands adminsitration). Increasingly the CSIRO is being pressured to commercialize their research due to politicians blarping on about tax money, and as a result there are subtle and sometimes not too subtle pressures to avoid annoying corporate sponsors, even if those sponsors are funding completely unrelated research (Lets face it, who actually funds climate change research? The only wealthy sector that seems even vaguely interested is the insurance sector, although the green energy sector is slowly starting to take shape). So this has distorting effects.

Despite this , in recent times the CSIRO has actually been pretty good about it, and I'm still hoping my Sis returns to Aust and resumes her work (Apparently the UK is not a great place to go surfing). But those conservative pressures are still there and its bamboozling people like Monckton still tour around australia claiming australian scientists are engaged in some sort of vast left wing conspiracy to say crazy poo poo for funding. You'd think if it where so evidence of this conspiracy would have emerged a bit more compelling than some scientists bitching out conspiracy-theorist loons in an email discussion. Well yeah, recently in Queensland the govt decided to start De-flourodizing water despite the protests of the scientific community, so even in government crazy can find its audience.

# ? Jan 31, 2013 07:30

Deleuzionist: Jul 20, 2010; we respect the antelope; for the antelope is not a mere antelope

Arkane posted:

Hence the reason that I have scoffed at some of the apocalypse planning in this thread.

I don't give two shits what you scoff or don't scoff at. Your credibility as a participant in climate change discussion is nil due to your own past actions and it's frankly surprising that your Totally Not Denialism hasn't gotten you banned as per first page rules. Do the rest of us a favour and stop visiting because you don't have anything to contribute.

# ? Jan 31, 2013 08:00

Spudalicious: Dec 24, 2003; I <3 Alton Brown.

Heres some actual good news I suppose. My dad's partner Klaus Lachner from Columbia University is ready to move to the next stage of their project with atmospheric CO2 capture.

http://earth.columbia.edu/videos/watch/459

A small bit of good news. My dad is Allen Wright, the awkwardish fellow who is handling the resins. If anyone has any questions for him I'm sure I could forward them along and get answers relatively quickly. Please be aware that he is a materials scientist primarily not a climatologist. He and Klaus have been at this for the past 10 years or so.

As they say in the video, it's insignificant in the face of climate change but a solid proof of concept.

# ? Jan 31, 2013 16:43

Laterbase: May 18, 2011

Nothing will ever be done about climate change because the reality of it is too horrible to comprehend. Unless we start rationing out power and fuel immediately we are going to doom this planet to being uninhabitable in a few hundred years. People seem to think we will create some magical solution in that time but I don't think they realise that some actions are irreversible. Combined with the fact that it won't hurt anyone alive today (in a first world country at least), there is literally no hope for humanity.

All this arguing about whether 2C or 4C will be the point of no return doesn't matter, we will continue burning fossil fuels until there is nobody left to burn them.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 04:42

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

I dunno. There was a lot of pessimism about Ozone, back in the day, but that situation was kinda contained despite the huffing and screaching of the conservative anti-science gang in the 80s. Granted "change the propellant in deodorant" isnt quite as hard as "change from carbon fuels" it does mean we can actually do poo poo as long as we are prepared to force the denialists to choke a bag of dicks and then get to work.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:25

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

Its not just denialists, its people that simply do not care. They know full well what they are doing may be harmful, and they know its for later generations to worry about. The lack of actual effort being done is sealing our fate to whatever climate change brings. Hopefully the lower estimates are right and not the higher damage ones. We are at its mercy at this point and frankly I'm about done caring about it. No one is going to stop the developed and developing from exploiting every single instance of fossil fuels they can find. We can create all the green businesses we want and convince everyone to drive hybrids and ride bikes and go vegan and it will do jack poo poo.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:41

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

WoodrowSkillson posted:

Its not just denialists, its people that simply do not care. They know full well what they are doing may be harmful, and they know its for later generations to worry about. The lack of actual effort being done is sealing our fate to whatever climate change brings. Hopefully the lower estimates are right and not the higher damage ones. We are at its mercy at this point and frankly I'm about done caring about it. No one is going to stop the developed and developing from exploiting every single instance of fossil fuels they can find. We can create all the green businesses we want and convince everyone to drive hybrids and ride bikes and go vegan and it will do jack poo poo.

I've noticed a connection between 'People who don't care' and 'People who believe in the second coming or the Apocalypse'

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:43

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

I guess their apocalypse is is in competition with ours.

I'd prefer the christian version myself. Magical space dude ascends from space and blasts monsters with badass jesus beams, and then everything transforms looks like a jehovas witness pamphlet and we spend out our days whistling and fishin' by the river. Fun! But sadly, reality don't work like that. So we face the probability of the weather turning nuts and everything floods or catches on fire australia styles. Not fun!

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:47

Sylink: Apr 17, 2004

Woodrowskilson:

This is a retarded line of discussion. No one cares about your chicken little bullshit.

As for real science, how reliable are pre-historic/geologic estimates of past CO2 levels (like Cretaceous era etc)?

I found some charts but I don't know how reputable the science is considered to be and there were claims that CO2 levels have been dozens of times higher in the past.

Certainly if the dinosaurs lived on an ice free planet with tropics reaching towards the poles I think we can survive. The planet didn't go on a run away then and it won't now. We vastly over-estimate the effect on the planet while the real concern is the effect on ourselves.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:54

deptstoremook: Jan 12, 2004; my mom got scared and said "you're moving with your Aunt and Uncle in Bel-Air!"

CommieGIR posted:

I've noticed a connection between 'People who don't care' and 'People who believe in the second coming or the Apocalypse'

That's idiotic. We all know that liberals (in the world sense, but especially in our peculiar American sense) whinge and whine about climate change while they do absolutely nothing to mediate or negate the environmental impacts they produce, and in fact environmentalists' obsession with visiting natural spaces clad in and wielding a dizzying array of overpriced consumer products from REI or similar businesses.

The point is that it's really stupid, dishonest, and internet as gently caress to say "those drat Christians" when really just about everyone is to blame.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 03:40

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

Sylink posted:

Certainly if the dinosaurs lived on an ice free planet with tropics reaching towards the poles I think we can survive.

The dinosaurs lived in and depended on a biosphere that had evolved to suit the conditions of their time, and when those conditions changed rapidly dinosaurs became extinct. We live in and depend on a biosphere that has evolved to suit the conditions of our time, and we are changing those conditions rapidly. Having brains will not be a substitute for having crops that will grow and fish and large mammals we can eat.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

«‹›260 »