|
Yay... 2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record quote:It’s official: 2014 has taken the title of hottest year on record. That ranking comes courtesy of data released Monday by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the first of four major global temperature recordkeepers to release their data for last year. Well, okay, some people already disagree quote:by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Must be headed for an ice age!
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 23:43 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 16:06 |
|
Evil_Greven posted:We're... #3? (BARELY, BARELY MADE IT, BARELY) Personally I still don't quite understand how the so-called hiatus works into the climate models but yeah. Is everybody certain it's due to deep-ocean heatsinks?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2015 00:42 |
|
Isn't the third warmest year since 1979 also the third warmest year in hundreds of years?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2015 01:53 |
|
Evil_Greven posted:Well, okay, some people already disagree Its Roy Spencer, the guy is a raving creationist who works with the Heartland Group
|
# ? Jan 7, 2015 03:36 |
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Personally I still don't quite understand how the so-called hiatus works into the climate models but yeah. Is everybody certain it's due to deep-ocean heatsinks? Not entirely, but it's the leading theory. Also, several scientist have been questioning "the hiatus" for years due to the rate the Arctic is warming - some think this is not worked in properly with global temperature distributions. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm "Of the three surface temperature records (HadCRUT3, NASA GISS, and NCDC), only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record. For NASA GISS and NCDC, the hottest year on record is 2005. A new independent analysis of the HadCRUT record sheds light on this discrepancy. The analysis is by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) who calculated global temperature, utilizing a range of sources including surface temperature measurements, satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys. They found warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe."
|
# ? Jan 7, 2015 07:22 |
|
One of the biggest problems is that the Earth is actually pretty loving big. It's a very complex system that is difficult to measure with any sorts of exactness and I think that's part of why the deniers are having a field day with the information. There's a gently caress ton of info out there and you can manipulate it to justify all sorts of dumb opinions. This is why you hear so much "CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DON'T AGREE!!!" bullshit. Which year is the hottest year depends on what you measure and how so they twist that into the scientists knowing nothing. Which is stupid, it's scientific fact at the moment that this rock we live on is heating up.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2015 13:12 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the biggest problems is that the Earth is actually pretty loving big. It's a very complex system that is difficult to measure with any sorts of exactness and I think that's part of why the deniers are having a field day with the information. There's a gently caress ton of info out there and you can manipulate it to justify all sorts of dumb opinions. It doesn't help that there will always be publicity and wealth for anyone willing to whore their degree out, and the publicity and wealth will be in such quantity that scientific credibility becomes vestigial.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2015 06:37 |
|
FAUXTON posted:It doesn't help that there will always be publicity and wealth for anyone willing to whore their degree out, and the publicity and wealth will be in such quantity that scientific credibility becomes vestigial. I have never been a fan of this line of thought. By and large, if scientists wanted to be celebrities that badly, they wouldn't have decided to become scientists in the first place. Sure, everyone would like to be famous, but this concept of scientists cheerfully hucking their academic credibility out the door and rolling into the sunset on a diamond-plated jet ski would be insulting if it wasn't so ludicrous. In my anecdotal experience, most (read: virtually all) of the researchers out there aren't rolling in dough, and the handful that are doing well aren't doing that well. Who gets into paleobotany for the phat paycheck, again? Also, it's not like these pressures are unique to climate science. You don't think chemists have these opportunities to compromise, via Big Pharma? Or, say, physicists, via the military-industrial complex (small potatoes compared to the cash cow that is glaciology, admittedly.) Thus this all seems like a roundabout way of implying that scientists as a whole just can't be trusted, which imo is loving stupid. E: I understand that you're not approaching this from the skeptic position; I still hate this line of thinking. How about "in virtually any field of work, there's going to be a very small sub-population of greedy assholes with no morals" vs "well that's the trouble with scientists, there's always that bling tempting em " rivetz fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jan 11, 2015 |
# ? Jan 11, 2015 14:00 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the biggest problems is that the Earth is actually pretty loving big. It's a very complex system that is difficult to measure with any sorts of exactness and I think that's part of why the deniers are having a field day with the information. There's a gently caress ton of info out there and you can manipulate it to justify all sorts of dumb opinions. Part of the problem really is when you say "Hottest year" what that actually means. Hottest for the atmosphere. Hottest on land. Hottest on ocean? Hottest in the antarctica. Hottest on average? Hottest on mean? etc etc.... Just by shifting those definitions around its pretty easy to throw sand up and go "Why sir its cooling", when really whats important is how much *energy* (Thermal/kinetic/etc) is being retained instead of being reflected back out again due to greenhouse gasses.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2015 14:09 |
|
Who gives a poo poo if its getting warmer or cooler. We are dumping loving POISON into the air and the water. Can't we just recognize the will of the people to live a healthy and sustainable life?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 00:19 |
|
DBlanK posted:Who gives a poo poo if its getting warmer or cooler. Uh CO2 is needed for plants to grow, checkmate greens. Also burning as many fossil fuels as we can will allow us to grow our developing economies and actually give healthy and sustainable lives to millions if not billions. Every drop of unburnt crude is another glass of dirty drinking water some poor mother has to drink. Arguing against fossil fuels is the same as arguing that other people should starve to death so you would feel less personally guilty. Your choices are: hate the poor or love fossil fuels. Alas I'm not even strawmanning.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 01:01 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Uh CO2 is needed for plants to grow, checkmate greens. Makes you think.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 01:17 |
|
Or poor people could have modern fuels like we give them modern medicines.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 01:19 |
|
i am harry posted:Or poor people could have modern fuels like we give them modern medicines. Yes, lets give them the modern fuels that the developed world uses: coal, oil and gas. There's a little book you all should read, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, its pretty much the best playbook for denying meaningful action on climate change. edit: also mentioning modern medicine should get at least a 5 minute rant about how modern medicine would be impossible without oil, but my desire to play devil's advocate only goes so far.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 01:22 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, lets give them the modern fuels that the developed world uses: coal, oil and gas. To be fair: If the ~developed nations~, China, India, and probably Brazil went CO2 neutral and the least developed countries went 100% fossil fuel to twice their current energy consumption (from "almost nothing" to "very little") it would still be a major step forward, and buy time to introduce more expensive renewables/nuclear.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 01:29 |
|
blowfish posted:To be fair: If the ~developed nations~, China, India, and probably Brazil went CO2 neutral and the least developed countries went 100% fossil fuel to twice their current energy consumption (from "almost nothing" to "very little") it would still be a major step forward, and buy time to introduce more expensive renewables/nuclear. Or we could just burn it all and assume we'll fix everything in the future since we go a lot more work done because of all our cheap pre-concentrated god-energy coming from the ground!
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 01:35 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or we could just burn it all and assume we'll fix everything in the future since we go a lot more work done because of all our cheap pre-concentrated god-energy coming from the ground! Technically, if we burned it all over an arbitrarily long period of time it wouldn't even matter Obviously, there would be a race to redifine "arbitrarily long" as "the next twenty years"
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 01:57 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Every drop of unburnt crude is another glass of dirty drinking water some poor mother has to drink. Actually, not every litre of gasoline you burn on your back yard directly contributes to ending the global scourge of cholera.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 02:15 |
|
rivetz posted:There are literally and without exaggeration hundreds of thousands of scientists working either in climate science or in a field directly related to climate science. Can you name just ten scientists who have ascended to publicity and wealth as a result of their findings? I should ask for a thousand, or even a hundred, but I'll stick with one-hundredth of one percent for ya. That wasn't the point I was making - mainly that the pressure for any scientist to make that leap is tremendous, moreso than so many other fields because it's "legitimate" on the dark side. It's illegal for a judge to take bribes or a lawyer to throw a case but a scientist willing to just wave that paper around and push whatever bullshit they're paid to? Clean money. The fact that the numbers are so lopsided despite that kind of proves the argument you're making - scientists aren't a group easily swayed by bling.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 09:26 |
|
FAUXTON posted:It's illegal for a judge to take bribes or a lawyer to throw a case but a scientist willing to just wave that paper around and push whatever bullshit they're paid to? Clean money. That's just not true. Academics lose their jobs (yes even tenured positions) over even the appearance of what you're describing. There are many examples of the undisclosed appearance of money influencing research costing an influential researcher their job and reputation. Its illegal to take federal grant money and then corrupt the results because you were paid to do so and federal money is everywhere. Sure, maybe there's a "Environmental Scientist at Shell HQ" that's willing to push BS, but I imagine its the same BS the Shell HQ Lawyers are pushing. Do you have any data or evidence to support this believe that scientists can just be as corrupt as they want and no one cares?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 17:09 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have any data or evidence to support this believe that scientists can just be as corrupt as they want and no one cares?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 17:43 |
|
I bet those people would have trouble speaking at AAAS But yes, if the existence of the American Petroleum Institute means you feel all scientists are corrupt, then the API is doing their job. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jan 12, 2015 |
# ? Jan 12, 2015 17:44 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:I bet those people would have trouble speaking at AAAS Dude, I don't think all scientists are corrupt, I don't even think they're as corruptible as the average person because of what draws people into the field, goddamn. You keep missing the point I was making in your haste to vigorously defend scientists against some imagined attack I never loving made. It's not a problem with the profession, it's a problem with outfits like Cato or Heritage who will flog the one guy in a million with more weakness than ethics and a willingness to distort facts and underwrite their lies with their Alma Mater's accrued dignity. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jan 12, 2015 |
# ? Jan 12, 2015 21:16 |
|
FAUXTON posted:Dude, I don't think all scientists are corrupt, I don't even think they're corruptible ad the average person because of what draws people into the field, goddamn. Well, seeing how I never accused you of that great job defending yourself. But you did claim that "a scientist willing to just wave that paper around and push whatever bullshit they're paid to" can get away with it. That's only true when those scientists are directly paid by a corporation asking them to shill. You're arguing that its "legitimate" to lie about scientific studies which is flatly wrong. People lose their jobs just for failing to disclose a conflict of interest. Also you're pretty much forgetting that modern science uses the peer review process as a counter against these supposed "tremendous" pressure scientists are under to be corrupt. Btw, do you have any evidence that scientists are under pressure to be corrupt, much more than "so many other fields" particularly lawyers? I'm really curious how you imagine the world works.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 21:26 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's only true when those scientists are directly paid by a corporation asking them to shill. Holy poo poo you get it now, that's exactly what I am saying - that scientists can go on the payroll of Fox or Heritage or whoever, and be touted as having all of the credibility of their prior stature while never having to see academic rigor ever again by just penning lovely opinion pieces for their bullshitosphere of blogs. Except, in the case of most scientists, ethics are an Actual Thing and the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists would never do anything even close even if their university was willing to allow side gigs effectively saying "nuh-uh, I'm a scientist!" for oil money. They can still wave their School Name Diploma around and say they're a big time science doctor, but never face peer review ever again. Are you just hung up on the fact that I'm using the term "scientist" for a former-scientist-turned-shill? Not that they can just be bribed while still working out of a university lab, you completely missed the point and made a bunch of pissy posts doubling down on missing it over and over and over for internet angry argument points. It's the case of the revolving door with a bunch of money on the other side but you're blowing it up into this whole "YOU SAID SCIENTISTS ARE UNETHICAL" debacle because you misread or had a bad day or something. They aren't unethical and it's really hard to credibly assume someone is trying to say they are when it's pretty obvious the entire academic research sector exists as an entity coterminous with ethical behavior. E: It's breathtaking how you seemingly purposely packaged the whole point I was getting at into an "unless..." and went back to railing against this shadowbeast you dreamt up out of thin air. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 12, 2015 |
# ? Jan 12, 2015 22:36 |
|
FAUXTON posted:Holy poo poo you get it now, that's exactly what I am saying - that scientists can go on the payroll of Fox or Heritage or whoever, Yes. FAUXTON posted:and be touted as having all of the credibility of their prior stature Touted? Sure, I can tout my world renowned rear end, doesn't make it true or credible. quote:
Well, seeing how a scientist is one that does science, and what you describe aren't scientists, then yes. Just because someone calls themselves an expert or a scientist doesn't make them one. Just because someone has a BS in Psychology doesn't make them a scientist. In fact, this weakening of the term scientist is a big part of the problem. By equating some talking head to scientific discourse you're strengthening their ability to counter research with dribble. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jan 12, 2015 |
# ? Jan 12, 2015 22:54 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes. So you are hung up on the fact that universities can't revoke PhDs to prevent shills from calling themselves doctors. Well then I apologize for calling former scientists scientists.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 22:59 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:In fact, this weakening of the term scientist is a big part of the problem. By equating some talking head to scientific discourse you're strengthening their ability to counter research with dribble. You are nitpicking a word choice describing what ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN REALITY. No matter what you think of it a huge slew or morons reads "Harvard phd" and assumes its an expert, especially they are just looking for someone they can call an expert who already agrees with them. Acknowledging that this is happening in reality doesn't strengthen anything. You can go around declaring them not real scientists all you want but there's no one that's going to give a poo poo who doesn't already agree with you. It's like talking in front of OWS or something.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 23:03 |
|
FAUXTON posted:So you are hung up on the fact that universities can't revoke PhDs to prevent shills from calling themselves doctors. Well then I apologize for calling former scientists scientists. Nice job equating two very in-equal things. I don't care that PhDs are eternal (although who calls someone with a PhD "Doctor"?), I care that someone with no scientific credentials in a field get called a scientist and an expert in that field. Besides, which "former scientists" are you exactly talking about? I'd love to see an example. Remember, having an MS doesn't make you a scientist just like having an MA doesn't make you an artist. Nevvy Z posted:You are nitpicking a word choice describing what ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN REALITY. No matter what you think of it a huge slew or morons reads "Harvard phd" and assumes its an expert, especially they are just looking for someone they can call an expert who already agrees with them. Acknowledging that this is happening in reality doesn't strengthen anything. You can go around declaring them not real scientists all you want but there's no one that's going to give a poo poo who doesn't already agree with you. So you admit the word choice matters, and that calling someone who just has a PhD a scientist is harmful but that its nitpicky to ever point this out? I'm also disputing the narrative that there are just tons of scientists who go rogue in the media. Are there graduates touting their degrees? Sure. But I'd love hear the tales of the research biologists turned ID advocates. If you think the attack on science is unimportant or not happening, you're not reading much. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 12, 2015 |
# ? Jan 12, 2015 23:03 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Besides, which "former scientists" are you exactly talking about? I'd love to see an example. Remember, having an MS doesn't make you a scientist just like having an MA doesn't make you an artist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 23:05 |
|
I don't even know what the gently caress you people are arguing about. He said she said? Jesus.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 23:14 |
|
Murray Rothbard and all those other Austrian/Ancap shitheels trying to dress up political punditry as economic science (which itself is debatable as a science due to political proximity by nature)
|
# ? Jan 12, 2015 23:22 |
|
rivetz posted:
But there are a lot of problems in pharmaceutical trials being done poorly or incorrectly, there's tons of literature being written on this now. Anyway why bring up some field like paleobotany? Something like statistics would be much more relevant to the topic of this thread, and yes, academic statisticians do pretty drat well. Like 500+k / year well if they are willing to work with the right people. Not all of academia is poor people. Also funny you bring up physics, remember Purdue bubble fusion from the early 2000's? There is an enormous amount of pressure for a scientist to essentially be a 'celebrity' in their field.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 00:07 |
|
FAUXTON posted:Murray Rothbard and all those other Austrian/Ancap shitheels trying to dress up political punditry as economic science (which itself is debatable as a science due to political proximity by nature) Don't forget noted Creationist and Meteorologist Roy Spencer! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 00:12 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, seeing how I never accused you of that great job defending yourself. Turns out this process is far less robust than we would have liked and is increasingly being challenged as an adequate solution to the problem.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 00:21 |
|
tsa posted:But there are a lot of problems in pharmaceutical trials being done poorly or incorrectly, there's tons of literature being written on this now. Anyway why bring up some field like paleobotany? Something like statistics would be much more relevant to the topic of this thread, and yes, academic statisticians do pretty drat well. Like 500+k / year well if they are willing to work with the right people. Not all of academia is poor people.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 07:38 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, lets give them the modern fuels that the developed world uses: coal, oil and gas.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 14:45 |
|
i am harry posted:I meant it more like youre suggesting we treat poors with leeches, metaphorically. I guess if giving poor people access to clean water, fresh foods, healthcare and vastly improved economic growth conditions is "bad" in your books then we shouldn't burn all the fossil fuels we can. Because you can't give those things to the poor people of the world without fossil fuels. Denying the poor people of the world access to cheap energy just because we've smugly decided it's no longer "cool" to have economic development and cheap energy, well....that's your idea not mind. I can channel that awfulness all day long.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 16:19 |
|
Ahoy goons with some actual knowledge on this subject: What, if any, is the current consensus on the best route to mitigate the damage of climate change for individual nations? a. Focus on reducing the release of greenhouse gasses, thereby hopefully reducing the severity of the climate change b. Focus on preparing for the inevitable climate change associated problems: build bigger dykes, increase freshwater production facilities, expand irrigation and agriculture etc. c. A mix of xx% option a and xx% option b? I'd think that relying on option a is at this point mostly wish-full thinking and that b should is the most pragmatic approach on a per nation basis.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 17:28 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 16:06 |
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Ahoy goons with some actual knowledge on this subject: It depends quite a bit on the specific country. Mitigation is probably best for small and coastal countries (e.g., the Netherlands) while reduction has a bigger impact with bigger countries. In general however it doesn't hurt to reduce greenhouse gases and you could ideally provide a model for larger countries.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2015 17:38 |