|
"Here's all the things the free market is doing to stop climate change just to make you babies shut up because it isn't even happening anymore" is the most fun have your cake and eat it too argument.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
That's pretty disingenuous since the hiatus Arkane is referring to is 1998 to the present.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:That's pretty disingenuous since the hiatus Arkane is referring to is 1998 to the present. Weird, it's almost as if Arkane is being disingenuous by emphasizing a carefully picked start date!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Can I just say thanks for the funniest page I've ever read in this thread, absolute gold. I treat Arkane as a microcosm of the problem and he's brilliantly if unwittingly exposed the lunacy of our system. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Weird, it's almost as if Arkane is being disingenuous by emphasizing a carefully picked start date! It absolutely doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, but the slowdown since 1998 is scientifically significant. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing a link to an article, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Thanks for sharing a link to an article, I guess? That is, reposts of that one .gif aside, it certainly appears that climate scientists are treating the recent hiatus/slowdown as a real thing worthy of study, rather than the pure statistical noise it's being dismissed as here. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
When I was a kid Christmas in these parts was always snowy as hell. Now it's rarely snowy. Something is going on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I originally thought it would speak for itself, but eventually I decided to add a molecule of commentary. Yes. However, deniers (who are beginning to shift to "it's happening but it's not that bad", a shift reminiscent of the debate on smoking) use it as a talking point to try and undermine belief in climate change and push for inaction. If you haven't noticed, Arkane does that quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Yes. However, deniers (who are beginning to shift to "it's happening but it's not that bad", a shift reminiscent of the debate on smoking) use it as a talking point to try and undermine belief in climate change and push for inaction. Even if the argument is all a scheme for him (which is, of course, not exactly the assumption of good faith that I prefer to start with), that has no bearing on the accuracy or the relevance of the matters he brings up. If the difference between the rates of warming from ~1970-2000 and ~2000 to present is due to oceanic influences which imply a lesser overall degree of climate sensitivity, that is absolutely worth knowing for the sake of our own understanding, regardless of why he would want to bring it up. You don't have to accept someone's conclusions to honestly examine and engage with the facts they bring to bear. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Hang on, I'm trolling by making a snarky comment? There's like 15 snarky comments directed at me in the past 2 pages. There are surely bigger concerns in your life than me making a joke. Sorry Arkane. You are the joke. It isn't like people can't see that big red text under your name or just look at your posting history and rap sheet. But play the innocent persecuted troll if that keeps you entertained. quote:Mega-claptrap That belongs in its own thread entirely. Not that it is anything new or productive, just tired rehashes of the same asinine non-arguments. When it comes to actually telling us how Capitalism is going to magically solve Climate Change on top of all the other problems it causes and/or exacerbates. That is what I want you to actually talk about instead of pie-in-the-sky "IT JUST WILL, TRUST ME GUYS." Tell us the actual method(s). Because right there has been decades of just the opposite and still plenty of anti-climate sentiment to spare. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:You don't have to accept someone's conclusions to honestly examine and engage with the facts they bring to bear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
TACD posted:Arkane has received far more than his due share of honest engagement from people in this thread. If somebody is utterly and unremittingly opposed to an honest debate - e.g. by repeatedly posting dubious claims, then disappearing when they're handily rebutted - then it becomes counterproductive to waste energy entertaining them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
TACD posted:Arkane has received far more than his due share of honest engagement from people in this thread. If somebody is utterly and unremittingly opposed to an honest debate - e.g. by repeatedly posting dubious claims, then disappearing when they're handily rebutted - then it becomes counterproductive to waste energy entertaining them. I've said my piece, in any case. Debating about how people are debating isn't especially productive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Here's a question: is anyone aware of an oceanographer who disputes the scientific consensus on climate change? The Scripps Institute of Oceanography lists 235 professors and researchers on staff, along with 75 post-doctoral scholars, hundreds of grad students and staff etc. Do any of them ever speak up on AGW? I ask because among the more prominent skeptic researchers I note a lot of atmospheric physicists, a lot of meteorologists, and a few geologists. I don't see anyone who specifically studies our oceans, or for that matter any glaciologists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
If you don't want a thread to be consumed with debating the science of climate change you just throw something in the OP about how the thread isn't about debating the science of climate change but how nations/capitalism/whatever might respond to it and generally that stops the circular debate, or at least it did in the geo-engineering thread I made ages ago. But maybe people like arguing about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:If you don't want a thread to be consumed with debating the science of climate change you just throw something in the OP about how the thread isn't about debating the science of climate change but how nations/capitalism/whatever might respond to it and generally that stops the circular debate, or at least it did in the geo-engineering thread I made ages ago. But maybe people like arguing about it? It's because without that you're either discussing alternate energy schemes (which is taken up in the energy thread and/or already has a concrete solution) or circle jerking about how we can't do anything and everyone will die in a hundred years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29474646quote:the scientists found that the rate of upper-ocean warming between 1970 and 2004 had been seriously underestimated. That inaccuracy is specific to the Southern Hemisphere, but is big enough, the scientists suggest, that global upper-ocean warming rates are also "biased low" - to the tune of 24% to 55%. Could somebody read that Nature article and sum it up here? I don't have access here. God I hate paywalls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's because without that you're either discussing alternate energy schemes (which is taken up in the energy thread and/or already has a concrete solution) or circle jerking about how we can't do anything and everyone will die in a hundred years. I was sort of getting at in the absence of the arguing about that and the weird despair people have over then problem there's lots of other topics to talk about, from the geopolitics of climate change (which could seriously threaten our ability to address to the issue) to how we might have to manage the earth's various systems depending on how much stuff stops working by the time we get the warming under control. But maybe the lesson is to have specific threads and any general thread is doomed to the pointless arguing you're describing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Another possible point of discussion is what concrete actions people can take and are taking, and what the next direct steps need to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's because without that you're either discussing alternate energy schemes (which is taken up in the energy thread and/or already has a concrete solution) or circle jerking about how we can't do anything and everyone will die in a hundred years. Kurnugia posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29474646 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Another possible point of discussion is what concrete actions people can take and are taking, and what the next direct steps need to be. Reading about the potential of nuclear power makes me want to get a degree and work in that field 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Reading about the potential of nuclear power makes me want to get a degree and work in that field Do Electrical, Mechanical or whatever and get a minor in nuclear engineering and do internships. Or join the navy. It'd be a good bet hedge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Do Electrical, Mechanical or whatever and get a minor in nuclear engineering and do internships. Or join the navy. It'd be a good bet hedge. I feel like the tone of the Navy Nuke thread in GiP is slightly different than this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Except when it stops being nice. If the ability of the oceans (not just Atlantic) to act as a temperature sink has been underestimated, then a lot of other things follow from that, most of them very nasty in the form of extreme weather phenomena frequency. Another unsettling consequence is that if the mechanisms of heat retention in the oceans have not been understood correctly, meaning that the oceans currently are absorbing heat a lot faster than we thought possible, then their maximal buffer is going to be reached far sooner too. Which means that when it runs out, we're going to get extremely rapid warming. Late reply, but this is almost certainly not true. It is estimated that oceans were 2C warmer at the beginning of the holocene, and oceans have warmed approximately .06C over the past 50 years according to ARGO. It seems unlikely that there is a maximal buffer anytime soon. The ability of the ocean to store heat is magnitudes larger than the atmosphere due to their respective densities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I feel like the tone of the Navy Nuke thread in GiP is slightly different than this. Eh, I had a buddy who did Navy Nuke as an officer (got undergrad degree first). He was the kind of guy to max out test scores, so he probably got his choice of stuff to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:He's certainly held a dubious position or two (I recall my last involvement in the thread, when he argued that the temperature anomaly should shoot up almost instantly to its originally predicted levels once the ENSO influence ends, if it was being suppressed by it). I appreciate the defense, but on this issue you are still in the wrong (or rather the dude with the comic book avatar who was arguing about it is in the wrong). The radiative energy imbalance is a cumulative effect rather than a year on year effect. If global temperature was being "suppressed" by ENSO, solar, and volcanic influences, as was Rahmstorf's hypothesis (such that he could justify the climate models being so far off), this would unwind itself virtually immediately in the absence of those influences due to the accumulated heat that was being radiated back to Earth from atmospheric CO2. Rahmstorf's effects are fleeting; accumulated heat due to radiative imbalance is not. We definitely did not have La Nina conditions in 2014 (slight lean towards El Nino) & we had no major volcanoes emitting sulfates....and yet we're not going to hit a record. Real world observations severely undercut his hypothesis. His point is further undercut by the fact that the models have adjusted for these factors already. He was double counting; as I said back then, it's not too dissimilar from that crackpot who "unskewed" the Romney polls. I don't really think the climate models are defensible at this point. We're so far off in such a short period of time that they need to start it from scratch. AR4 modeled mean versus observations is just one big divergence. TACD posted:Arkane has received far more than his due share of honest engagement from people in this thread. If somebody is utterly and unremittingly opposed to an honest debate - e.g. by repeatedly posting dubious claims, then disappearing when they're handily rebutted - then it becomes counterproductive to waste energy entertaining them. Would you say that the science is gravitating towards my position or gravitating towards the alarmist position? If you think it's the latter, then I don't think you're following this field of study at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29474646 Second paper in that article is also interesting; it concludes that the deep ocean hasn't warmed in the past decade by backing out observed OHC changes in the top level of the ocean from observed sea level rise to conclude that the deep ocean hasn't contributed to sea level rise and therefore isn't warming (as has been postulated). That wouldn't be good in the short-term. Ideally, the warm ocean water of the upper level will get mixed into the deep level so that the heat literally sinks. Uranium Phoenix posted:Weird, it's almost as if Arkane is being disingenuous by emphasizing a carefully picked start date! SKELETONS posted:That's pretty disingenuous since the hiatus Arkane is referring to is 1998 to the present. Starting in 1998 is fine, but I start in 2001. 1998 is skewed high due to El Nino. 2001 is skewed low due to La Nina. Plus Jan 2001 is the starting date of the AR4 climate models. Either way, the hiatus has been a while. The jiff appeals to ignorant people, which explains its popularity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:41
|
|
Arkane posted:Starting in 1998 is fine, but I start in 2001. 1998 is skewed high due to El Nino. 2001 is skewed low due to La Nina. Plus Jan 2001 is the starting date of the AR4 climate models. Either way, the hiatus has been a while. The jiff appeals to ignorant people, which explains its popularity.  You're just so full of poo poo it's hard to take seriously. Keep screaming about temperature hiatuses that don't exist! Hopefully this helps 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Late reply, but this is almost certainly not true. It is estimated that oceans were 2C warmer at the beginning of the holocene, and oceans have warmed approximately .06C over the past 50 years according to ARGO. It seems unlikely that there is a maximal buffer anytime soon. How about the International Glaciological Society, the International Association of Cryospheric Sciences, or the World Glacier Monitoring Service? The combined membership of the organizations I've listed (if you include Scripps, from my previous post) has to be over a thousand; adhering to the 97% rule would mean dozens of dissenters at the absolute least, and if you don't buy Cook 2013 it's almost certainly higher, yet it's not clear that skeptics can name even one or two folks don't consider the trend in ice loss a matter of grave concern. Is it your position that these researchers are all a) intentionally doctoring the data on our world's glaciers and polar ice; b) just "wrong, wrong, wrong" and misinterpreting all the data; c) know perfectly well that everything's hunky dory and are afraid to say anything for fear of losing "grants"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
TACD posted:Here you go
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
It's already been explained to Arkane a million times that the "temperature hiatus" he's so worked up about has long been explained by the unexpected ability of the oceans to absorb more heat than we previously thought. That doesn't mean that things aren't as bad as we thought, it just means that the Ocean is going to be hosed a lot faster than we thought. His entire point is "its not accelerating as fast as we thought  " and "the alarmists are wrong". Also, the solution is free market capitalism, surprise
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Arkane, you seem to know an awful lot about the oceans, but you of course are not an oceanographer. On the off chance that you missed my question somehow: are you aware of any scientist or researcher whose primary area of focus is the world's oceans who disputes the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (namely, that the planet is warming, the predominant cause is human activity, and the consequences are potentially severe)? Not aware of any, no. What is it about ice loss that you think is a "grave concern"? There are physical constraints on how fast ice can melt such that it'll be decades or in the case of Antarctica hundreds of years before it becomes a concern (at least with respect to land ice that would contribute to sea level rise).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It's already been explained to Arkane a million times that the "temperature hiatus" he's so worked up about has long been explained by the unexpected ability of the oceans to absorb more heat than we previously thought. That doesn't mean that things aren't as bad as we thought, it just means that the Ocean is going to be hosed a lot faster than we thought. to the bolded...what? just typing something that sounds scary? I have tons of posts here about the hiatus and the ocean -- explaining how it works, posting the newest articles -- so I have no idea what the hell you are talking about that it's been "explained to me." And realize that the implications that the hiatus is caused by the "unexpected ability of the oceans to absorb more heat than we previously thought" likely means we have severely overestimated the future warming of the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:59
|
|
Arkane posted:And realize that the implications that the hiatus is caused by the "unexpected ability of the oceans to absorb more heat than we previously thought" likely means we have severely overestimated the future warming of the atmosphere. No it doesn't actually, it just means that the models need to be adjusted, which they have been. We still need to stop emitting so much carbon, and that's really all you're against at the end of the day. We need a carbon tax. The science has been in on that issue for the past 30 years. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 extra years to reach 4 degrees C if we're dealing with much more sea level rise (hint: probably the largest immediate problem facing us as a result of climate change and the oceans absorbing more heat means the alarmists there were right I guess?). You're just an idiot arguing for a nonexistent position. "The alarmists were wrong" well except for every single goddamn scientist in the past 30 years. poo poo has proceeded as horribly (and worse than we could have expected it) as we have predicted it would. The fact that sea level rise is going to be a problem sooner than we thought shouldn't be celebrated as a "hiatus" or a "win" for the skeptics or whatever the gently caress you're taking it as. It's known that there are unpredictable aspects to the models, in fact, the scientists will tell you that. What you won't find is a scientist telling you we need to make changes that uses the IPCC models as their only basis for that message. I liked it better when you were just banned for your lovely posting.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No it doesn't actually, it just means that the models need to be adjusted, which they have been. Nope! Again you are just making something up. We'll be lucky if they adjust them in time for the next IPCC report, which is still years away. down with slavery posted:We still need to stop emitting so much carbon, and that's really all you're against at the end of the day. We need a carbon tax. The science has been in on that issue for the past 30 years. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 extra years to reach 4 degrees C if we're dealing with much more sea level rise (hint: probably the largest immediate problem facing us as a result of climate change and the oceans absorbing more heat means the alarmists there were right I guess?). We're not going to reach 4C probably ever. Ocean sea level rise isn't accelerating per our satellite observations. It's been a relatively steady 1.2 inches per decade since 1992. Sealevel.colorado.edu down with slavery posted:You're just an idiot arguing for a nonexistent position. You're making stuff up and when you can't find something to make up, you default to googling a stupid graph and posting it for the 18th time. down with slavery posted:poo poo has proceeded as horribly (and worse than we could have expected it) as we have predicted it would. This is demonstrably and statistically false. You're not educating yourself if you think this is true. You have no idea on the science if you think what you just posted is true. down with slavery posted:The fact that sea level rise is going to be a problem sooner than we thought shouldn't be celebrated as a "hiatus" or a "win" for the skeptics or whatever the gently caress you're taking it as. It's not going to be a problem for anyone anytime soon. Even that island country that the alarmist think is going to sink isn't going to be affected in any meaningful way for decades. The pace is slow as all hell. Meanwhile, humanity keeps getting wealthier, smarter, and more technologically advanced by the year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:21
|
|
Arkane posted:Ocean sea level rise isn't accelerating per our satellite observations. It's been a relatively steady 1.2 inches per decade since 1992. "Per Decade" Since 1992, what a shocking choice of year. A whopping two data points handpicked. We've just all seen your song and dance, it's so old and played out.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I feel like the tone of the Navy Nuke thread in GiP is slightly different than this. My brother is a Navy nuke (he posts in the GiP thread I believe) and definitely don't do it, it's not fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Look I found words in a scientific study that when take out of context can be construed as supporting my positions!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:31
|
|