Beffer posted:

So the full extent of discussion in the SA thread on climate change about the President's speech is half a dozen posts.

Not even goons can be bothered any more.

We are so screwed.

Beffer posted:

So the full extent of discussion in the SA thread on climate change about the President's speech is half a dozen posts.

Not even goons can be bothered any more.

We are so screwed.

Beffer posted:

So the full extent of discussion in the SA thread on climate change about the President's speech is half a dozen posts.

Not even goons can be bothered any more.

We are so screwed.

quote:

Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said Thursday that climate change will drive job creation.

“Climate change will create jobs. It will create disasters before it creates jobs, but it will create jobs,” Lagarde said on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”

Her remark came in a wide-ranging interview about the global economy. She cited climate change in response to a question about where job growth can occur at a time when workers are getting displaced by automation.

“It is a major issue, particularly at a time when robot-ization is developing in many of these advanced economies,” she said.

“But you know there will be areas of growth. You talk about green growth — that will be associated with particular jobs for which the training has not yet been invented and needs to be aggregated and put together,” Lagarde said Thursday.

Arglebargle III posted:

I just listened to the This American Life segment where they ask an Exxon scientist whether it's true that 20% of current known reserves will put us over the "everyone's hosed" 2 degrees C warmer on average line established by the U.N., and the answer they get back is "Yes, and with current projections we expect a 5 degree increase by the end of the century." I only have one question: is political violence justified by these circumstances?

I feel like if there was a cabal of supervillains getting together and announcing their plans to destroy Miami, New York, London, Shanghai, etc. etc. the U.S. special forces would be there before the end of the broadcast. Yet we have shareholder meetings of the big energy companies essentially announcing the same things and nobody is sending killteams after them.

quote:

Overall, a broad swath from the American west and up into Canada is expected to experience temperatures between 10 and 35 degrees Fahrenheit above average. A visual representation of this incredible heat spike is provided by Weather Bell via Climate Central:

quote:

Zyryanka, Siberia, recently recorded a high of 37.4°C (99.3°F), against normal high temperatures of 20°C to 21°C for this time of year. Heat wave conditions were also recorded in Alaska recently, with temperatures as high as 96°F (36°C).

Arglebargle III posted:

I just listened to the This American Life segment where they ask an Exxon scientist whether it's true that 20% of current known reserves will put us over the "everyone's hosed" 2 degrees C warmer on average line established by the U.N., and the answer they get back is "Yes, and with current projections we expect a 5 degree increase by the end of the century." I only have one question: is political violence justified by these circumstances?

I feel like if there was a cabal of supervillains getting together and announcing their plans to destroy Miami, New York, London, Shanghai, etc. etc. the U.S. special forces would be there before the end of the broadcast. Yet we have shareholder meetings of the big energy companies essentially announcing the same things and nobody is sending killteams after them.

quote:

But when it comes to the numbers at the heart of McKibben's argument, the numbers showing that if Exxon and other companies simply sell what is in their reserves, they will drive up the planet's temperature far more than two degrees, I asked Cohen and his PR guy, and the press people at the oil industry lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, several times for anything they might have that would dispute those numbers. And they didn't come up with anything. Finally, Exxon sent me to an industry-funded expert at MIT who told me not only that McKibben's numbers were solid but that in fact, at current rate of emissions, by the end of the century, we'll probably raise the planet's temperature five degrees.

Ronald Nixon posted:

Ronald Nixon posted:

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.co...ture-this-week/



http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-threat-of-wildfires-in-the-north.html

Hedera Helix posted:

Oh crap, please don't let this be true. I have to ride a fair distance each day, which is only possible when the temperature is below triple digits.

Arkane posted:

So how anyone could look at the past decade of data and think 5C by 2100 is still a legitimate possibility boggles the mind.

Placid Marmot posted:

Don't worry; we will have suffocated from the extra CO2 by then.

Arkane posted:

You piqued my interest and I read the transcript, and it's a wee bit vague:


I see no reason that Glass would lie, but I also see no reason that an unnamed MIT scientist is giving predictions far, far outside even the IPCC. "Probably 5C" implies >50% chance of a 5C rise in 87 years, presuming a 2000 baseline. AR4 climate models put the range at 1.7-4.4C with a median of 2.8C. 5C is nearly double the median, and much higher than the topline! That's also even above the A1F1 scenario median of 4C. And those are all 110 year models as opposed to 87 year models! You kind of need to assign a name when you have a scientist giving out that alarmist/outside the mainstream of a number.

And as we know from data, virtually all of the models are biased warm through 2013, with some of them so far above the observational data that the models are rejected/garbage:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ModelObsComparison_21001.png
Zoomed in: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ModelsObsComparison_2020.png

So how anyone could look at the past decade of data and think 5C by 2100 is still a legitimate possibility boggles the mind.

Squalid posted:

Have you ever talked to climate scientists in real life Arkane? In my experience, when asked to show the evidence supporting warming they'll rattle off those 2-4C numbers, but when you ask for their opinions, scientists who'll only defend conservative warming estimates will gladly spout off every terrible prediction you can imagine. In my experience, most climate scientists believe there enough unknowns in climate models to produce far more warming than existing data indicates, and often believe the IPCC errs on the conservative side. Anecdotal, yes but it could explain some of the vagueness these statements.

Arkane posted:

So how anyone could look at the past decade of data and think 5C by 2100 is still a legitimate possibility boggles the mind.

Arglebargle III posted:

I only have so many days to return this thing. Should I keep it and order the full-auto conversion kit or take it back? This thread is giving me whiplash.

Joking aside, seriously, would violence even slow down global warming at all? Did the gulf war slow it down (let's assume Hussein doesn't light the Kuwaiti oil wells.) Did the Iranian revolution slow it down? Did Exxon-Valdez slow it down? Do Nigerian insurgents attacking oil fields have any appreciable impact?

Does anyone else think maybe it's starting to be time to at least examine whether violence is an option?

unlawfulsoup posted:

If anything wars are going to accelerate climate change. Collective international action becomes difficult when people are shooting at each other, let alone trying to create new agreements. Further, just the nature of any war is going to foster huge releases of carbon. Whether it is the actual usage of weapons/vehicles or simply the mass creation of new ones. I guess in some kind of horrendous long term perspective a short brutal war that wiped out a large amount of the populace might slow down global warming. Still, considering that as some kind of solution is well within the realm of lunatics or the insane people who want to release mutated viruses to 'cull' the population.

Arkane posted:

The American west makes up much less than 1% of the planet's surface (it's ~1% if you extend that into the Canadian portion of the image). Don't confuse localized weather with global climate. I'm guessing you didn't get up in arms about the extreme cold winter that the US had in some parts of the country during the late winter/early spring.

Globally, 2013 looks to be on par or colder than 2012 which was colder than 2011 which was colder than 2010. Data from NASA, as one example. Global temperature has been in relative stasis for about 12 years now; the 30-year trend is ~.15C per decade.

quote:

Last 365 Days Jun 29, 2012 - Jun 28, 2013
Hi Max Hi Min Lo Max Lo Min
18,934 22,389 15,136 11,420

Squalid posted:

Have you ever talked to climate scientists in real life Arkane? In my experience, when asked to show the evidence supporting warming they'll rattle off those 2-4C numbers, but when you ask for their opinions, scientists who'll only defend conservative warming estimates will gladly spout off every terrible prediction you can imagine. In my experience, most climate scientists believe there enough unknowns in climate models to produce far more warming than existing data indicates, and often believe the IPCC errs on the conservative side. Anecdotal, yes but it could explain some of the vagueness these statements.

unlawfulsoup posted:

If anything wars are going to accelerate climate change. Collective international action becomes difficult when people are shooting at each other, let alone trying to create new agreements. Further, just the nature of any war is going to foster huge releases of carbon. Whether it is the actual usage of weapons/vehicles or simply the mass creation of new ones. I guess in some kind of horrendous long term perspective a short brutal war that wiped out a large amount of the populace might slow down global warming. Still, considering that as some kind of solution is well within the realm of lunatics or the insane people who want to release mutated viruses to 'cull' the population.

Dreylad posted:

Ideally we'd just start growing meat in a lab, but that's a long ways off.

Paper Mac posted:

Tissue culture requires incubators, culture hoods, sterile spaces, autoclaved instruments, large amounts of plastic, culture media (which itself generally uses bovine or other large animal serum), antibiotics, and close human supervision. I'm not clear on where the idea that tissue culture is less carbon-intensive than just raising the animals comes from, but I'd be very surprised if it were actually the case.

Clipperton posted:

Everyone just eat bugs already, God drat

Torka posted:

Someone always jokes about this but it seems like it ought to be a reality. Like most (e: western) people I'd have trouble eating bugs that looked like bugs, but I'd be okay with eating some kind of processed protein that happened to come from bugs as long as it was unrecognizable by the time it got to me.

Malgrin posted:

Given the losses we've seen over those periods (~.5 million sq km per 4 years), we could see it gone between 2030 and 2040. Multi-year/thick sea ice plays a huge role in this too, and with so little thick ice left, sea ice is melting much faster in the spring.

Ronald Nixon posted:

This guy is still suggesting this year, apparently based on ice fractures and the motion from wind, waves, cyclonic action etc.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease#.UcNtX1G7rxI.wordpress

Also, why don't you add what you think to what you publish? Aren't we at the point where what we can show is so far behind what is happening (owing to the accelerating rate of change) that you've got little to lose by adding what you really think? Conservative positions continue to represent the problem as one we can solve later.

Malgrin posted:

This line of reasoning makes me want to stab my brain with a screwdriver. Yeah, global temperatures haven't seen a huge jump in the past 12 years, but they're still so much higher than they've been in the past. Since natural variation and climate cycles (e.g. PDO, AO) have such a large impact on year to year temperatures, very little information can be extracted from 12 years of data. Generally, you want to look at a minimum of 20-30 years of climate data, but once you factor in autocorrelation, you end up with less than half of that in your effective sample size. To get a realistic trend, in most cases, you need 40-50 years of climate data. Don't tell me our climate isn't warming because warming has been slower the past decade. Additionally, saying that 2011 and 2012 are cooler than 2010 is like saying ice isn't cold because space is really cold. 2010 (~tied with 2005) is the HOTTEST year on record. Statistically, any time you reach a high (low) record, it's very likely the next several points in a time series will be lower (higher). 2011 and 2012 were both hot years. You're also ignoring that the oceans are absorbing huge amounts of heat, which has kept our surface temperatures from increasing more, and that trend hasn't really changed. The oceans are also still warming.
A pretty good method of quantifying climate change is to look at climate extremes. In a given year, track the number of hot/cold records produced. If they balance, you have a relatively stable climate. However, if they skew in one direction or the other, over the period of several years, it becomes pretty clear the climate is heading in that direction. You can find an example of that kind of data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

Malgrin posted:

I'm not sure I agree with him. As far as extent goes, we're at ~11 million sq. km., whereas last year we were at 10. All it would take would be some strong storms (see 2007), apparently cyclones -- mentioned in his article, or extremely hot weather (like Alaska right now) to see a sudden drop in sea ice extent. I think it's unlikely. Given an extreme event, it's always likely that the next few years will be more mild -- see 2007 through 2011. I understand his reasoning, and it could happen, but I think it is unlikely.

quote:

As for publishing what you think, when it's your master's thesis, you publish what your committee thinks you should publish. Additionally, depending on your journal reviewers, going too far will get you rejected. I agree though. I went as far as I could, saying these were conservative estimates and we'll likely see less ice sooner.

unlawfulsoup posted:

If anything wars are going to accelerate climate change. Collective international action becomes difficult when people are shooting at each other, let alone trying to create new agreements. Further, just the nature of any war is going to foster huge releases of carbon. Whether it is the actual usage of weapons/vehicles or simply the mass creation of new ones. I guess in some kind of horrendous long term perspective a short brutal war that wiped out a large amount of the populace might slow down global warming. Still, considering that as some kind of solution is well within the realm of lunatics or the insane people who want to release mutated viruses to 'cull' the population.

Ronald Nixon posted:

Fair enough for yourself, but it's definitely a problem of the system. The way peer-reviewed science came about was a great mechanism for stable conundrums (e.g. the solar system arrangements, gravity, evolution) but for rapidly changing circumstances it is inadequate. The response time is too slow, and by the time you are confident (with the typical meaning) in the findings, they have become obsolete. So we're replacing the danger of acting quickly on bad info with acting slowly on old info.

Personally I think instead of quoting confidences and likelihoods, scientific articles on this issue should assert things forcefully in the main text, and relegate caveats to footnotes. The way it is now is so self defeating - "Here's what might happen! It's bad!", quickly followed by "...but that badness is within a range, and less badness in another range, and the possibility of goodness in another...". The message gets lost.

Arglebargle III posted:

I meant like terrorism. Like, should we start examining whether physically attacking the oil industry and its leaders is a viable tactic.

Strudel Man posted:

Only one way to find out. Get back to us, okay?

Arglebargle III posted:

I meant like terrorism. Like, should we start examining whether physically attacking the oil industry and its leaders is a viable tactic.

Arkane posted:

I said the 30-year trend right in the post, man. Nothing in there was an attempt to be misleading; it was to give perspective. And I think it is completely fair to point out that weather extremes - and they are WEATHER extremes (with the heat being caused by changes in the jet stream) - should not be used to bolster an argument in the absence of other information. If it were part of some global phenomenon like the 1998 ENSO event, then sure, but just isolating singular weather patterns and ignoring trends is disingenuous -- and indistinct from saying "hey Al Gore it's snowing in April."

On your second point, you seem to take it for granted that the oceans are absorbing huge amounts of heat -- Trenbeth's "missing" heat, to be specific. There's two reasons you shouldn't take this for granted: (1) the deep ocean research is built upon models, and not direct observations, so these could be (and if you will permit me editorializing, probably are) as wrong as the climate models and (2) it's entirely possible that deep oceans can be getting warmer AND that climate models could be grossly exaggerating temperature rise. There isn't a mutual exclusivity in those two occurrences. In fact, the mere existence of "missing heat" (whether it is in the ocean or nowhere at all) implies yet again that our climate models are severely limited by our lack of knowledge of major variables (with cloud cover, as always, still being an unknown feedback).

As to your last point about temperature extremes, I think a much simpler method of quantifying climate change is to look at global climate. What you've linked to are temperature records that cover 1.85% of the globe.

Ronald Nixon posted:

Personally I think instead of quoting confidences and likelihoods, scientific articles on this issue should assert things forcefully in the main text, and relegate caveats to footnotes. The way it is now is so self defeating - "Here's what might happen! It's bad!", quickly followed by "...but that badness is within a range, and less badness in another range, and the possibility of goodness in another...". The message gets lost.

Arkane posted:

This would not be science; this would be political activism. Already way too prevalent of a problem in the field.

Arkane posted:

This would not be science; this would be political activism. Already way too prevalent of a problem in the field.