|
Strudel Man posted:What, the one linked right there? Unless I've missed something, it's entirely about a method for interpolating data to fill in the gaps in the weather station network. quote:The trend of 0.12 °C is at first surprising, because one would have perhaps expected that the trend after gap filling has a value close to the GISS data, i.e. 0.08 °C per decade. Cowtan and Way also investigated that difference. It is due to the fact that NASA has not yet implemented an improvement of sea surface temperature data which was introduced last year in the HadCRUT data (that was the transition from the HadSST2 the HadSST3 data – the details can be found e.g. here and here). I looked at the methods in the paper and I don't understand them, but there appears to be more going on than just filling in geographical coverage gaps, they're using different datasets from those used to construct the original estimate.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I looked at the methods in the paper and I don't understand them, but there appears to be more going on than just filling in geographical coverage gaps, they're using different datasets from those used to construct the original estimate. I don't understand the methods used in any real detail either, but it seems to be saying pretty straightforwardly that they're filling in the gaps in an otherwise conventional HadCRUT record. The result just has some rather extreme implications as to the content of those gaps. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry, you're quite right. Their numbers for the Arctic are pretty alarming, then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Yeah, sorry, you're quite right. Their numbers for the Arctic are pretty alarming, then. If the Arctic is warming that much faster than previously thought, I wonder if that's the explanation for the unexpected rates of ice melt there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:This is as close as it gets to "gently caress you, idiots" in the pages of a Nature journal.. I'm sure the editors had a good laugh letting that wording through proofing!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
this allusion meant posted:Late Victorian Holocausts is a really useful book for informing how we think about climate impacts in a lot of ways. A familiarity with the history of what happened the last time most of the world was 1) controlled by an empire that opened the markets of subject nations, and 2) was beset by extreme droughts and subsequent crop failures, is pretty much indispensable for approaching the question of how those circumstances might play out in the future. The discussion of the role of ideology in the British Raj is particularly helpful, I feel, in establishing some starting points for discussing the role of modern market fundamentalism in interpreting the significance of the agricultural consequences of climatic disturbance and in producing the social consequences thereof. Some points in the book that are especially pertinent in my mind include the effect of market pressures and policies in reducing the resilience that previous social systems had developed, the destruction of the remaining ability of the environment to provide for human needs by the acts of desperate farmers made unable to survive sustainably, and the tendency for marginalization and hunger in ordinary times to pass by with relatively little notice, but to produce extraordinary catastrophe in times of unusual stress, which are inevitable in the variability of natural systems. For the history enthusiasts, the book provides a very good account of how these events decisively sealed the victory of Europe over Asia when the latter had long had the "advantage" by several metrics. It did take me a really long time to get through the section that just talks about the ENSO phenomenon. There's only a single paragraph talking about speculative effects that global warming might have on the ENSO cycle, but in conjunction with the rest of the book, what is predicted about the range of climate variability as warming continues, and what most of us might know about the discussed countries today (such as their medium-term water usage sustainability issues), it is rather concerning. I've been itching to do an effortpost on this for quite some time, and you finally pushed me over the top. Writing that up now, should appear as a thread sometime next week. I think it's worth a wider audience if only because of the historical study which is fascinating in its own right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Maybe not surprising, but despicable nonetheless: the US's policy at COP19 is to oppose any efforts by developing nations to seek compensation or redress from Annex I for climate change damages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
I hope SkS or DeSmogBlog or somebody picks up on a pretty icky trick this week by Heartland. There's a couple articles making the rounds on conservative sites concerning a recent survey of AMS (American Meteorological Society) members regarding their position on global warming. I'm not clear on all the details, but the study was done between the AMS and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication. Heartland was involved somehow (presumably through the CFCCC) and sent out a summary that wasn't approved by the authors on the AMS side, made the thing look like it came from the AMS, and used their logo without permission. http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/going-to-the-source-for-accurate-information/quote:A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results. The article is up on Daily Caller as "Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming, which is an awfully creative conclusion given that the survey actually found a 93% consensus among climate scientists specifically on AGW. I'd love to see them catch a little flak for this, but I guess the damage is done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
They meant non-publishing meterologists and atmospheric scientists at 65 and 59 percent.quote:327 Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists quote:345 In terms of strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables,
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:I'm having trouble reconciling some of the things that Klein is talking about in that excerpt with some of my preexisting knowledge. Specifically the incompatibility of GDP growth with climate mitigation. What about the Zero Carbon Australia plan? http://bze.org.au/zero-carbon-australia-2020 That's a ten year plan I believe, so you should be able to figure a 10 percent per year reduction in emissions. That plan also seems to promote GDP growth to me rather than hinder it. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/ http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/ The zero carbon plan relies on a number of rather heroic assumptions being correct, which I think makes it less than realistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 10:58
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
mdemone posted:I've been itching to do an effortpost on this for quite some time, and you finally pushed me over the top. Writing that up now, should appear as a thread sometime next week. I think it's worth a wider audience if only because of the historical study which is fascinating in its own right. Just started this thread as promised. Hoping to pull in some comments from the folks in here, especially if you've read the book and have something to contribute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Just started this thread as promised. Hoping to pull in some comments from the folks in here, especially if you've read the book and have something to contribute. Cool thread! I don't have much to contribute other than that book is depressing (and interesting) as hell. Bjorn Lomberg had a pretty interesting Op-Ed in the NYT today. Can't say there's much there I disagree with, unlike most of his stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
blowfish posted:http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/ That provides a really excellent critique, thank you. I suspected the BZE plan might be too good to be true, but it did seem like a really thorough study. Still, if you can transition to a renewable energy economy for $2,600 per household per year, that's at least attainable. Claiming that it does not amount to a financial barrier, as the BZE Plan does, is unreasonable, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
The New Black posted:If the Arctic is warming that much faster than previously thought, I wonder if that's the explanation for the unexpected rates of ice melt there? Wasn't there talk of the effect of going from high-reflectivity ice to high-absorption seawater helping to push Arctic warming trends out towards the margins? I imagine that would just accelerate over time since heating melts ice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
So, this just happened on The Guardian UN's 2C target will fail to avoid a climate disaster, scientists warn. The paper itself can be found here and there was no paywall in place when I viewed it. It's James Hansen's paper, so it's naturally painting some pretty dire pictures, but I don't feel that papers like this are terribly helpful. By saying we're already screwed, he's unintentionally encouraging us to give up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:Cool thread! I don't have much to contribute other than that book is depressing (and interesting) as hell. quote:The developed world needs a smarter approach toward cleaner fuels. The United States has been showing the way. Hydraulic fracturing has produced an abundance of inexpensive natural gas, leading to a shift away from coal in electricity production. Because burning natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, this technology has helped the United States reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the lowest level since the mid-1990s, even as emissions rise globally. We need to export this technology and help other nations exploit it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Smarter and cleaner are not ways to describe fracking. Maybe if the scale goes from "bad idea" to "really loving bad idea".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:So, this just happened on The Guardian 2C is established as being a tipping point, so the UN is gambling with 2C and they know it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:I don't feel that papers like this are terribly helpful. By saying we're already screwed, he's unintentionally encouraging us to give up. The problem I have with this is that "we're already screwed" is just a fact at this point. Why encourage people to live in denial? If we're willing to admit to ourselves that it is impossible to avert disaster, we can better focus on preparing for and mitigating the disaster rather than waste our time on dead ends and wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The problem I have with this is that "we're already screwed" is just a fact at this point. Why encourage people to live in denial? If we're willing to admit to ourselves that it is impossible to avert disaster, we can better focus on preparing for and mitigating the disaster rather than waste our time on dead ends and wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The problem I have with this is that "we're already screwed" is just a fact at this point. Why encourage people to live in denial? If we're willing to admit to ourselves that it is impossible to avert disaster, we can better focus on preparing for and mitigating the disaster rather than waste our time on dead ends and wishful thinking. You're right. I just wish I could share your optimism. There's a reason I keep this post bookmarked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The problem I have with this is that "we're already screwed" is just a fact at this point. Why encourage people to live in denial? If we're willing to admit to ourselves that it is impossible to avert disaster, we can better focus on preparing for and mitigating the disaster rather than waste our time on dead ends and wishful thinking. "It's impossible to <totally avoid this negative consequence> so why even talk about making laws to address <actions>?" Maybe some parts of the world will make an attempt, but America will get mad at the fact that we have to so much as turn the music down half a notch at our party, and spitefully engage in sabotage to show how lame and tyrannical it is to give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The problem I have with this is that "we're already screwed" is just a fact at this point. Why encourage people to live in denial? If we're willing to admit to ourselves that it is impossible to avert disaster, we can better focus on preparing for and mitigating the disaster rather than waste our time on dead ends and wishful thinking. Because this part is false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The problem I have with this is that "we're already screwed" is just a fact at this point. Why encourage people to live in denial? If we're willing to admit to ourselves that it is impossible to avert disaster, we can better focus on preparing for and mitigating the disaster rather than waste our time on dead ends and wishful thinking. Denial is poo poo. Well its a hard one. Part of the reason my sister stopped working in climate science , other than the harrassment her department was getting from the Howard Government who really wanted climate scientists to stop talking about warming, was that all her collegues where pretty much struggling to get results other than "We are completely and utterly hosed" , but where institutionally unable to express that view. But we gotta do something quote:Because this part is false. The picture might not be as rosy as we have been led to believe, I'm afraid. Its not about averting disaster anymore, its about limiting it. Personally I like to think the first step would be dragging denialist politicians and think tank hacks to the hague for a Nuremburg type outcome, for all the future misery their actions have caused, but I guess that options not on the table!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The picture might not be as rosy as we have been led to believe, I'm afraid. Its not about averting disaster anymore, its about limiting it. I don't think he was saying that you were wrong about the climate outcome. Rather that wide acceptance of the already guaranteed outcome causing society to more effectively focus on creating solutions is no certainty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:I don't think he was saying that you were wrong about the climate outcome. Rather that wide acceptance of the already guaranteed outcome causing society to more effectively focus on creating solutions is no certainty. Exactly. If you frame it as "well there's nothing we can do to stop [bad thing], but maybe if we work together we can stop [worse thing]", people will tune out after "we can't stop [bad thing]". If you want to make people enthusiastic, you need to frame it as "If we don't change something now then [worse thing] will happen", and omit that [bad thing] is already going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
It seems absurd to me when liberals or other "progressive" types use the criticism that some climate activism isn't "realistic," because realistically we aren't going to do anything. There is no realistic climate mitigation plan. Our objective must be to make what seems implausible today possible tomorrow. Nobody ever said it would be easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:The paper itself can be found here and there was no paywall in place when I viewed it. Incidentally, PLOS should never have a paywall, because they're the Public Library of Science. It's one of the many nice things about publishing in PLOS- the people who paid for the research actually get to read it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:48
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The problem I have with this is that "we're already screwed" is just a fact at this point. Why encourage people to live in denial? If we're willing to admit to ourselves that it is impossible to avert disaster, we can better focus on preparing for and mitigating the disaster rather than waste our time on dead ends and wishful thinking. Indeed, lets not set ourselves a difficult goal and instead set ourselves an impossible goal. What a great idea. Didn't you say something about going to protest the Keystone pipeline a year ago? You even said you thought it was the most effective bit of volunteering you could do at that moment. Well, that seems like a preventative strategy to me, precisely something focused on "averting disaster" rather than anything else. So clearly in your actions at the time, you were more willing to "waste your time" with such things. And just to establish further clarity - what do you mean by "disaster"? You see, by one understanding we're already experiencing a disaster so it's kind of pointless to talk about averting it. Or do you think like you used to that disaster is the whole billions of people die&civilization collapses thing? If that's the disaster we're supposed to be "preparing for", care to explain what methods exactly we should be focusing on?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Misery time with Mr Duck! Read this! http://guymcpherson.com/2013/12/a-letter-to-a-friend-who-condemned-me-as-a-hopeless-doomer-2/ quote:But it takes courage to admit that death is imminent. It takes courage to realize there will be no one to remember us, or Beethoven, or Charlotte Perkins Gilman, or Debussy, or Van Gogh, or Isadora Duncan, or Billie Holiday, or Vonnegut, or anybody else. There will be no legacies any more, no memories, no legends, no dirges to mourn us. The finality of it will be eternal. But it will not be the first time a species went extinct. Every day 200 species go extinct. Our number is coming up soon. It takes courage to admit that, and blind faith to ignore it and go on with business as usual. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 18:24
|
|
quote:But it takes courage to admit that death is imminent. Not much courage in it, really. It takes courage to face reality but it also takes courage to have hope. Everybody can be a cynic. In fact, it's one of the most convenient things to be if you are trying to justify doing as little as possible. Dusz fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Slightly off-topic, but this is the closest thing we have to an environmental thread.quote:It was one of the world's most destructive environmental disasters in human history: in April 2010 an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig killed 11 men and sent 210m gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing a black tide covering 68,000 square miles of ocean and spreading along 16,000 miles of coastline. Spill is the first book from photographer Daniel Beltrá, who documented the spill from a Cessna floatplane, 3,000ft above the Louisiana coastline. It includes 27 of his award-winning aerial photographs that have gone on show around the world, and an essay by Barbara Bloemink that gives context to Spill as an artistic response to the environment and nature  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2013/dec/09/spill-daniel-beltra-in-pictures More at the link. Some nice photography there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Misery time with Mr Duck! So...we're dead by 2030? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQuv8fETfME
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
I have no idea, I've just been having fun making people miserable with that essay on facebook, because I'm bit of a dick sometimes. v v
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
So, is this guy off the rocker? I mean it's easy to ignore his articles because they contain way too much conspiracy speak in between the citations, but if he doesn't misrepresent the articles the situation seems to be worse than I (your average concerned goon next door) personally thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Grim Up North posted:So, is this guy off the rocker? I mean it's easy to ignore his articles because they contain way too much conspiracy speak in between the citations, but if he doesn't misrepresent the articles the situation seems to be worse than I (your average concerned goon next door) personally thought. I have no idea. He's got a pretty serious academic history But I can't help thinking at some point he did the maths and kind of snapped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
The comments, at the least, are total end-is-nigh placard-wearing folks, talking about how at least the end of the world will let them quit their lovely jobs that they hate. The audience of the writer certainly seems more than a little unhinged. I mean the author is generally correct, but its not like its gonna be in the next couple decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
gently caress that guy. If I got a cancer diagnosis and was told that even with the best treatment I would have maybe a 1% chance of surviving, I would still not throw up my arms and moan "Oh it's hopeless!". Even if the treatment was debilitating, expensive, and exhausting I would still do it. I feel the same way about climate change. Why? Because this is the only life we have and the only planet we have. It would be an enormous "gently caress You" to the billions before and after us if we just hid under the couch mewling pathetically when the tools to save our asses are right loving here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:35
|
|
