|
Elotana posted:The proper response when a scientist throws their lot in with the denialist camp is not to pick nits about their exact field. Global warming is as multidisciplinary as it gets and there are tons of experts in many different areas who can contribute. Rather, the question to ask is whether their objections are based on a substantive analysis of the data that is, if not subject to peer review, at least open-sourced and detailed to a sufficient extent that other experts can evaluate its merit, or whether they are simply throwing their title behind the same old tropes. Freeman Dyson, for instance, is a very famous physicist but as far as I know he has not seriously laid out any criticisms of the models that are any more detailed than the ones made every day by non-physicist bloggers. He speaks in vague and general terms about "fudge factors" and does not go into any detail about any particular models, of which there are hundreds! In fact, he's said: Freeman Dyson has been more specific. He talks of carbon respiration in terms of plant/atmosphere, and I know there was a study that at least backed up the jist of what he was talking about, but it escapes me at the moment. Elotana posted:As far as I know the only substantive attempt at challenging the projections has been Lindzen's cloud-iris theory, a blind alley that got a perfunctory white-knighting by fellow skeptic Spencer and a roasting from everyone else. The projections are guesswork, a known unknown as explained countless times by the IPCC, NCAR, and everyone else; the large ranges for 2100 should clue you into that. It's an evolving field with lively debates on many issues, clouds just being one aspect. The fact that you think that the only substantive attempt at challenging the projections was a Lindzen theory from a quite a large number of years ago is more of a commentary on your own lack of knowledge. There's a good back and forth on the topic here (that continues into the comment section) on a site maintained by the Netherlands government for climate debate: http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Arkane posted:The fact that you think that the only substantive attempt at challenging the projections was a Lindzen theory from a quite a large number of years ago is more of a commentary on your own lack of knowledge. There's a good back and forth on the topic here (that continues into the comment section) on a site maintained by the Netherlands government for climate debate: http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/  Compare this spread to the models that were used in the 5AR:  The ECS values in the models range from 2.1 on the low end to 4.7 on the high end. So let's see. What's the only equilibrium climate sensitivity value in this chart whose 5-95 confidence interval lies entirely outside any model utilized in the IPCC? Lindzen & Choi 2011! Elotana fucked around with this message at 00:15 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Impossible to come to any concrete conclusions without reading the paper itself. However, *releases cloud of inky fluid from anus, escapes in confusion*
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Who, exactly, is politicizing climate change? And what does that even mean? If you truly believe it's happening, doesn't something that inherently requires governmental intervention inevitably end up politicized? I think both sides politicize. Aside from the climate debate, the left is generally about larger government and the right is generally about smaller government. Likewise, larger government could be achieved by tackling climate change with a top-down approach and smaller government could be achieved by either not tackling climate change or betting on technological advances (bottom up approach). The left/right debate also tends to look at humanity's advancements differently. Generally speaking, the left looks at economic advancements as a promotion of inequality, and the right looks at economic advancement as everyone in society becoming better off. Along those lines, there is an element of "humanity = bad" versus "humanity = good" in terms of clashing philosophies. The issue is pretty much tailor made for a political argument, and it's why science often seeps into the background or is used selectively. Dovetailing into that, there is the usual refrain of "do you think there is some vast conspiracy by climate scientists exaggerating climate change for nefarious reasons?" And the answer to that is no, but it is a nuanced no. I think it deals with a combination of prestige/peer pressure, funding, and political beliefs. I think scientists tend to be left-leaning, they tend to think that humanity is an ill rather than a benefit, and they tend to think that the Earth was in some natural balance and we're destroying it. That is a generalization that does not apply to everyone of course. I also think there is an element of peer pressure. It is more difficult to gain advancement and acceptance if you question dogma. Two examples to illuminate the point. There was a PhD thesis by a graduate student named Ababneh published a few years ago. In it, she re-analzyed one of the vital paleoclimate datasets, the bristlecone pines of Graybill (used by Mann in all of his hockey sticks). It was new data for a dataset that had not been updated in decades, and it found rather profound differences (no hockey stick). It was not published, it is not referenced, it has effectively disappeared off the face of the Earth. The old Graybill data is still used by Mann, and I am not aware of any intent to reanalyze the site. Another example would be the recent work of Marcott, whose differences between his PhD version of his paper and his published version is a gigantic hockey stick. The rejoinder would be that he looked at the data more closely and found a better result...plausible, except that when confronted about the spike by NYT reporter Revkin the authors stated that the spike was not statistically significant. So then one is left with the conclusion that the hockey stick was thrown in to draw headlines rather than for any scientific purposes. More controversial examples would be the two famous deletions of proxy data by Mann & Briffa -- it is inconsistent to show proxies for temperature declining while temperature is increasing as it complicates the clean story you are trying to tell of your ability to map temperatures centuries prior. Another example would be the study that showed that the oceans were up to 2C warmer at the beginning of the holocene, but the headlines were dominated with "sea temperature rising at fastest rate since the beginning of the holocene," a tiny blip in their paper. When confronted, again by NYT reporter Revkin, the authors stated that that bit of the paper was not statistically significant. These are examples off the top of my head. There's a narrative here, and I think that political views & the acceptance of their colleagues play into it to a strong degree. The story must be consistent: AGW is unprecedented, it is worse than we feared, it is accelerating, and we must act immediately. Finally, if temperatures and sea levels do not rise as feared or predicted, and I don't think it will be anywhere close, I expect the rationalization for being very loud and very wrong is that you were right IN PRINCIPLE. You hear it a lot now, "even if we're wrong, we should be doing XYZ because it is the right thing to do." That is a political rationalization: that your idea of the right "solution" is indeed right.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Nic Lewis' very first figure in your link is a fantastic illustration of my point, thanks Arkane: A reduction of the subset of possible outcomes, caused by lowered ECS & TCR estimates, is indeed a questioning the of projections. The high end projections, the ones most often cited ("as much as X" by 2100) would be thrown out the window were it agreed that ECS & TCR are far lower than estimated.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Arkane posted:A reduction of the subset of possible outcomes, caused by lowered ECS & TCR estimates, is indeed a questioning the of projections. The high end projections, the ones most often cited ("as much as X" by 2100) would be thrown out the window were it agreed that ECS & TCR are far lower than estimated.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Aside from the climate debate, the left is generally about larger government and the right is generally about smaller government. Likewise, larger government could be achieved by tackling climate change with a top-down approach and smaller government could be achieved by either not tackling climate change or betting on technological advances (bottom up approach). The left/right debate also tends to look at humanity's advancements differently. Generally speaking, the left looks at economic advancements as a promotion of inequality, and the right looks at economic advancement as everyone in society becoming better off. Along those lines, there is an element of "humanity = bad" versus "humanity = good" in terms of clashing philosophies. You seem to have no idea what leftists actually think. For example, the idea behind Communism is a classless society. The idea behind Socialism is workers owning the economy. Neither of these things have anything to do with the size of government. As a leftist, I personally see government as a tool. Like most tools, it can be used to do good things (like universal healthcare) and bad things (like the military bombing children). Also, if you have any studies showing inequality lowers when economic growth is high (what I assume you mean by the nebulous term "advancement") I'd love to see them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Darn leftists. They'll use any pretext at all to get a bigger government.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:Darn leftists. They'll use any pretext at all to get a bigger government. It's all we want! If the government grows big enough, Karl Marx rises from his grave and ends capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:Darn leftists. They'll use any pretext at all to get a bigger government. By Trotsky's Beard, we'll summon Hobbe's Leviathan, and the Glorious Red Tsunami shall triumph!!!  
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Nm.
America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:15 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:A reduction of the subset of possible outcomes, caused by lowered ECS & TCR estimates, is indeed a questioning the of projections. The high end projections, the ones most often cited ("as much as X" by 2100) would be thrown out the window were it agreed that ECS & TCR are far lower than estimated. quote:I think both sides politicize. Aside from the climate debate, the left is generally about larger government and the right is generally about smaller government. Likewise, larger government could be achieved by tackling climate change with a top-down approach and smaller government could be achieved by either not tackling climate change or betting on technological advances (bottom up approach). The left/right debate also tends to look at humanity's advancements differently.  I've heard ~decentralisation~ and ~bottom up solutions~ coming from a wide range of backgrounds from raging neoliberals to walking stereotypes of lefty hippies (the same idiocy is widespread across the political spectrum, everyone act surprised, wait, Arkane actually is surprised!). I simply don't get why people fetishize that bullshit. There's a good reason people live in or near centralised cities in countries with a central government and work for corporations with a CEO and a board of directors rather than in a commune. Bottom up works for widespread small scale stuff with lots of different variations like stocking supermarket shelves with consumer goods (which is where command economies run into the brick wall of reality). However, once you get to infrastructure and utilities where everyone needs essentially the same base level of stuff (everyone needs access to clean water, electricity, roads, whatever), you can easily build a few large and more effective central providers offering these goods to a large number of people. Anyone who seriously thinks making people provide their own electricity needs in a completely unorganised fashion or that gardening will provide a meaningful fraction of food for cities because ~bottom up solutions~ when I could be doing useful or fun things instead can get hosed. On that note, anyone who thinks that an effective monopoly on the electricity grid hardware (therefore we need multiple alternative sets of power lines or something because competition and free markets, I've literally heard people advocate this) can also get hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 10:41
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:You seem to have no idea what leftists actually think. Left in it common modern usage does not mean true socialists and communists and you know it. Generally being on the left means wanting more government regulation and higher taxes and on the right means deregulating and lower taxes. I did enjoy the flurry of smug posts high fiving each other though
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Left in it common modern usage does not mean true socialists and communists and you know it. Generally being on the left means wanting more government regulation and higher taxes and on the right means deregulating and lower taxes. Both are liberalism, and not left at all.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
So, after posting this in the Eastern Europe thread, I figured that the most massive flood to occur in Serbia and Bosnia in more than one hundred years would be relevant to the climate change thread. What do I mean by massive?  In some places, there was more rainfall in a single day than those places usually get in 2-4 months. The level of rivers rose rapidly, and, well...  Dozens of people have died so far, and tens of thousands are being evacuated.  Articles: Reuters article with basic info. Weather Channel article with pictures. BBC article with an URL that makes it apparent that some people think we're in Africa.  The amount of rainfall is higher than has ever been recorded, and with the official records going back to the 19th century, that's saying something.  The Red Cross is gathering all the aid it can get (Incidentally, info about donating to the Serbian Red Cross can be found here - I hope someone can post a relevant link for the Bosnian one) The biggest Serbian hydroelectric plants have stopped working in order to let as much water pass as possible, to reduce pressure on the riverbank barriers. Since we get a lot of power from them, it's putting a massive strain on our power distribution network. Republika Srpska (Serbian part of Bosnia) is redirecting a lot of power to us to prevent a collapse, but they can't keep doing it forever. And now the biggest non-hydroelectric plant in Serbia, "Nikola Tesla" in Obrenovac, is in danger of being flooded. There's a war with water going on near Šabac, because if the chemical plants there get flooded, the words "completely and utterly hosed" won't be adequate to describe what will happen to people who get caught downstream from there. Sremska Mitrovica is holding for now, but with most of the crisis team effort being directed at Šabac, there are fears that the barriers won't hold, despite the awe-inspiring amount of work being done by its residents. edit: tl;dr - We are so screwed my dad fucked around with this message at 21:20 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
my dad posted:edit: tl;dr - We are so screwed Holy gently caress.  I heard the floodings were bad, but didn't realise it was that bad.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Right-wingers can't not project. "Well certainly, the left only pretends to care about AGW as a cynical means to a self-serving end. This end unto itself is an "increase" in the "size" of the bourgois state, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:Right-wingers can't not project. "Well certainly, the left only pretends to care about AGW as a cynical means to a self-serving end. Elotana fucked around with this message at 00:15 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I like the part where Arkane accused me of not following the science because Lindzen's cloud-iris theory was "from a quite a large number of years ago" when it was last published about in 2011 (and Lindzen continues to publicly defend it), and three posts later was frantically waving the moldly "Mann <3 bristlecones" sign. It's like McIntyre is the skeptics' high school quarterback and MBH98 vs MM03 was the time they went to State. No, be honest. You just hate advancement, and humanity in general.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
I'm not even on "the left," certainly not by D&D standards.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
I've been lurking this thread for a while, very interesting. I'm just wondering what the deal is exactly with Arkane? He comes in, says something stupid, has it pointed out, doesn't even consider this, disappears and then reappears to remind everyone he is right with another incorrect statement. So is he paid to do this or is he actually representative of the way some climate change deniers think?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I like the part where Arkane accused me of not following the science because Lindzen's cloud-iris theory was "from a quite a large number of years ago" when it was last published about in 2011 (and Lindzen continues to publicly defend it), and three posts later was frantically waving the moldly "Mann <3 bristlecones" sign. It's like McIntyre is the skeptics' high school quarterback and MBH98 vs MM03 was the time they went to State. Lindzen's cloud theory has been bandied about since 2001, so it pre-dates both the fourth and the fifth assessment reports as well as even TAR. The point was that the debate over climate sensitivity ranges being too high is not reliant upon his theory from 15 years ago. The rejected paper from Bengtsson that kickstarted this tussle references the Otto paper from 12 months ago which lowered the mid-range estimate substantially. Co-authored by numerous IPCC lead authors. It is a matter of scientific record that our best guess estimates for climate sensitivity is dropping. Revkin wrote about this more than a year ago, before Otto was published: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/a-closer-look-at-moderating-views-of-climate-sensitivity/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 and I of course linked you to the debate between Annan and Nic Lewis which is more current.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
my dad posted:edit: tl;dr - We are so screwed Flooding & droughts of course happen without having anything to do with us all the time (scientists have yet to be able to detect any increase or decrease in flooding or droughts worldwide). And as an FYI, southeastern Europe is projected to get drier rather than wetter so that would indeed be a bit of a reverse signal. Century-scale flooding will happen every century or so. Seems to be a propensity to attribute every single extreme thing on the planet to climate change, in the face of scientists who have concluded differently.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:You seem to have no idea what leftists actually think. Probably the least controversial thing in this thread to say that the left/right divide is mostly about the size & role of government. It's endemic to every single political debate in the western world. As far as socialists or communists proper, who cares? That demographic is pretty much just unemployed people on the internet at this point. Elotana posted:arkanes_understanding_of_confidence_intervals.txt The papers are reducing CI bounds, and lowering the ranges. The estimates are becoming more precise with more observational data. The fact that the IPCC range is (was) so large communicates to you that they have little to no clue. What is happening in the literature now is that the high-end ranges of the IPCC are outside the bounds of new analyses.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I cut the rest of your post just to lay bare the fact that you are essentially saying "nuh-uh," and maintaining your argument that the models should be slagged because temperatures have not jumped .2-.3°C within two years of the confounders being removed. I honestly don't feel the need to continue the debate with you if you think this is the way climate or the climate models work. Go ahead and declare victory Don't really know what else to tell you if that's your only response. You're wrong on this. Radiative imbalance doesn't have a memory bank, and past years would not affect the model. Absent *ALL* natural variations, the temperature would be immediately at the modeled mean with a 100% accurate model. This is what TCR is in the first place. The response of the climate at point in time X, given radiative imbalance Y. Natural variations can mask short-term radiative imbalances as forecast by the model, but they do not alter the TCR. Think about it as if you would your own wallet: inbound radiation (money going in) & outbound radiation (money going out). The footprint of GHGs is in the difference in the radiative balance from the norm (your wallet slowly gaining more money), and that radiative imbalance in terms of X extra gigawatts being stored each year in the atmosphere continues on like a snowball rolling down a mountain. Feel free to contact a climate modeler or read the IPCC report or wikipedia or something. And yes, one year or two years or three years isn't enough of a data set for concrete conclusions, but neither is the 10 years that encompass the Rahmstorf study (years prior to and including 2000 are hindcasted), so that window of ENSO neutral conditions expands his data set by quite a large percentage. That's why I said I would be interested in seeing his methodology applied to the present, as it is unlikely that even with his "fixes" that we're anywhere close to the models at the present time.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf I just happened to be wondering about this recently. quote:1. Introduction
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Hey Arcane, any luck on this?Arkane posted:The left/right debate also tends to look at humanity's advancements differently. Generally speaking, the left looks at economic advancements as a promotion of inequality, and the right looks at economic advancement as everyone in society becoming better off. Uranium Phoenix posted:Also, if you have any studies showing inequality lowers when economic growth is high (what I assume you mean by the nebulous term "advancement") I'd love to see them. An IMF report (well known radical socialists) has some interesting things to say: IMF posted:In earlier work, we documented a multi-decade cross-country relationship between inequality and the fragility of economic growth. Our work built on the tentative consensus in the literature that inequality can undermine progress in health and education, cause investment-reducing political and economic instability, and undercut the social consensus required to adjust in the face of shocks, and thus that it tends to reduce the pace and durability of growth. Arkane posted:Probably the least controversial thing in this thread to say that the left/right divide is mostly about the size & role of government. It's endemic to every single political debate in the western world. As far as socialists or communists proper, who cares? That demographic is pretty much just unemployed people on the internet at this point. Also, given that you do agree climate is warming and that subsequently, coal and carbon-emitting energy sources must be changed in the long run, how is "betting on technological advances (bottom up approach)" going to change the entire energy and transportation infrastructure of the United States (never mind the world)? Finally, I'm also going to disagree with your statement "Along those lines, there is an element of "humanity = bad" versus "humanity = good" in terms of clashing philosophies." People who I talk to on the right see people as inherently selfish and greedy, hence their argument for a market economy that relies on selfishness to work. People on the left I talk to think people are fundamentally good, hence their argument for social programs and altruism.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Finally, I'm also going to disagree with your statement "Along those lines, there is an element of "humanity = bad" versus "humanity = good" in terms of clashing philosophies." People who I talk to on the right see people as inherently selfish and greedy, hence their argument for a market economy that relies on selfishness to work. People on the left I talk to think people are fundamentally good, hence their argument for social programs and altruism. Political ideologies are abstractions of much more complex personal motivations. These motivations are tangential to and not rooted in political ideology. Your average person often is heterogeneous in political views, having a deeper set of values which transcend particular political ideologies. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:49 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Please don't let Arkane's gross left-right stereotypes derail this thread into a super-general pissing match. Let's keep the pissing very targeted!Arkane posted:The rejected paper from Bengtsson that kickstarted this tussle references the Otto paper from 12 months ago which lowered the mid-range estimate substantially. Co-authored by numerous IPCC lead authors. It is a matter of scientific record that our best guess estimates for climate sensitivity is dropping. quote:Our best estimate for climate sensitivity from the last decade of data alone is 2 °C, which is lower than the AR4 best-estimate of 3 °C, but in the range of other recent estimates using 20th century data (Aldrin et al, 2012; Libardoni and Forest, 2013; Lewis, 2013), so the fact that we get a strongly skewed distribution with a best-fit around 2 - 2.5 °C is not really news. quote:Comparing these ranges directly to the IPCC's range for climate sensitivity from AR4 is difficult. For one, the IPCC didn't directly give a 5 - 95% confidence interval (i.e. no upper 95% limit), and secondly, the IPCC range is not derived formally from an analysis of data, but is a consensus expert assessment of all the different lines of evidence underlying the IPCC report. Hence the IPCC's likely range of 2.0 - 4.5 °C is not directly comparable to a 17 - 83% confidence interval derived from our study. IPCC typically down-grades confidence levels from those reported in individual studies to account for "unknown unknowns". By the way, what does Otto have to say about the implication you seem to be promulgating that his energy budget values, if they indeed formed the basis of a new consensus (as opposed to the multitude of other 2012-2013 studies which you have of course chosen to ignore) would represent some big, shocking news that should shake the foundations of climate science? quote:What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3 °C rather than 1.8 °C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC's models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.  One more thing: Arkane posted:The Otto 2013 paper was incredibly important as it was coauthored by a large number of IPCC lead authors, and it dropped climate sensitivity estimates dramatically (this has been a constant refrain from me, known to the one or two people who actually read my posts). The Otto 2013 study is not in AR5 due to deadlines. The only co-author who doesn't realize this is Lewis, who like Bengtsson, finds the idea that his views are not immediately and overwhelmingly convincing so bewildering that he concludes that the rest of the scientists must be coming from a place of bad faith, and proceeds to whine to the GWPF, publish lovely cherry-picked meta-analyses, and tell any loony who will listen what they want to hear so they can uncomprehendingly recapitulate his arguments on forums despite having zero real understanding of why one estimate is better than the other except that one agrees with their preconceptions. Keep up the ineffectual condescension though! 
Elotana fucked around with this message at 18:54 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Flooding & droughts of course happen without having anything to do with us all the time (scientists have yet to be able to detect any increase or decrease in flooding or droughts worldwide). And as an FYI, southeastern Europe is projected to get drier rather than wetter so that would indeed be a bit of a reverse signal. Century-scale flooding will happen every century or so. I said in over a century because that's about how far the official records go. There is no mention of a flood of this scale before in the region, and I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said that this is the worst flood to hit the region in at least half a millenia. And floods in general are getting more frequent and more dangerous here.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Flooding & droughts of course happen without having anything to do with us all the time (scientists have yet to be able to detect any increase or decrease in flooding or droughts worldwide). And as an FYI, southeastern Europe is projected to get drier rather than wetter so that would indeed be a bit of a reverse signal. Century-scale flooding will happen every century or so. Once again, in a surprising turn of events, you're wrong. While saying any single given disaster is attributable to climate change is difficult, the increase in disasters and their intensity are directly attributable to climate change. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6 Specifically relating to flooding and droughts, here's one that says Regional Study posted:This study shows that flood and drought events have occurred more frequently since the 1980s. The trend of flood and drought events is positively related to climate warming... Report posted:“We can now say with some confidence that the increased rain-fall intensity in the latter half of the twentieth century cannot be explained by our estimates of internal climate variability,” she says. The second study links climate change to a specific event: damaging floods in 2000 in England and Wales. By running thousands of high-resolution seasonal forecast simulations with or without the effect of greenhouse gases, Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, UK, and his colleagues found that anthropogenic climate change may have almost doubled the risk of the extremely wet weather that caused the floods. And there's more. Seriously, please stop lying about everything all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Updates on the flood are in the Eastern Europe thread.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Probably the least controversial thing in this thread to say that the left/right divide is mostly about the size & role of government. It's endemic to every single political debate in the western world. As far as socialists or communists proper, who cares? That demographic is pretty much just unemployed people on the internet at this point. Also, your point on communists is very childish and perfectly showcases you for what you are and how much weight your knee-jerk opinions hold. There are probably more worthless posters on this forum but we'll have to look into scammers and child abusers to find them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:Also, your point on communists is very childish and perfectly showcases you for what you are and how much weight your knee-jerk opinions hold. My god, don't you see, they're unemployed. Who cares what they think?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Hey, not just lower yields for crops kids, but - shittier quality as well!quote:The team, led by Samuel Myers, a research scientist at Harvard's Department of Environmental Health, grew a variety of grains and legumes in plots in the US, Japan, and Australia. They subjected one set to air enriched with CO2 at concentrations ranging from 546 and 586 parts per million—levels expected to be reached in around four decades; the other set got ambient air at today's CO2 level, which recently crossed the 400 parts per million threshold. trigger warning: Site posting this info may be on some side of the political spectrum tl/dr: See the thread title as usual.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
You lie, CO2 is plant food 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
So, I have nothing new to contribute, but a couple things have been bugging me that I don't see much talk about anywhere. First, flood insurance in the US is an unprofitable business in many areas and most private insurers dropped coverage in these places decades ago, so congress created the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968 to provide homeowners with govt provided flood insurance. The way it works in practice is that people living in flood-prone areas basically have their poor choice of living area subsidized by the government and the program is bleeding money by having to pay to rebuild the same lovely houses in the same frequently flooded areas over and over. The Biggert-Waters Act of 2012 and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 are intended to fix the program, or at least that's the spin, anyone know what's really up with the future of this program? Here's a random fun map:  Second, does anyone have any idea how much nasty chemicals and poo poo are stored near oceans/flood zones? The oceans are already pretty gross, I shudder to think of the toxic soup they'll become when floods and sea surges are regularly sweeping over cities, industrial/agricultural zones, etc. Now for the real reason for this post:  Seriously, 4 successive posts in 37 minutes? Just edit your first loving shitpost, this is ridiculous even for you.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
IOP has updated its post with the second referee's comment on Bengtsson's rejected paper:quote:The authors use the wrong equation to calculate the "committed warming". In their equation 3, they should use the equilibrium climate sensitivity, not the transient climate sensitivity. This would then yield the climate system’s eventual equilibrium temperature increase (relative to pre‐industrial temperature) for a given forcing, which they take to be present day GHG forcing. Since the transient climate sensitivity is quite a bit lower than the equilibrium climate sensitivity, they have substantially underestimated the committed warming. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Slarlid posted:Now for the real reason for this post: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
blowfish posted:You lie, CO2 is plant food I feel like a lot of people that think "plants use this so they obviously just need more of it to do better" have never grown anything in their lives. Plants need water and light. Obviously, but some plants just die and rot if you overwater them and there are some plants that grow best in the shade. Hell too much fertilizer can make a plant die. But you know, global warming and ozone depletion are good because more plant food yay! Except that if you increased sun exposure enough poo poo would just catch on fire.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
