|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:I hold nothing against him on it, I was just interested to know if there's any validity to his arguments, especially the volcanism in the arctic one. Its a red herring. The question is not "Do volcanos have an effect on the climate?" its "Is human activity changing the climate?" Both are true, but one has been true for millions of years and beyond our control. The other isn't. Its total right wing bullshit. Ask him what he thinks of the rich paying higher taxes for universal health care. If he supports it, I'll pay 100 bucks to a charity of your choice. I'm serious. edit: I want to clarify something. Most of us accept the scientific consensus, but how many really accept the conclusions? Millions and millions of people are going to die in misery, war ,famine, pestilence, the whole shebang. Thats sounds a bit unhinged doesn't it? You feel like saying "calm down". But if you accept the scientific consensus and believe that we wont change out behaviour then its it guaranteed to happen. Yeah, Im angry about climate change. bpower fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jan 29, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
bpower posted:Its total right wing bullshit. Ask him what he thinks of the rich paying higher taxes for universal health care. If he supports it, I'll pay 100 bucks to a charity of your choice. I'm serious. I understand that climate change has terrifying consequences and it bears on my mind and life decisions every day. It's the most important thing that will happen globally in my lifetime and I get uneasy thinking about how the world will be when I'm old and possibly with grandkids. I mean, I can't even fathom the loss of life and destruction CC will bring to 3rd world countries. Millions dead in a modern holocaust (I'm not being hyperbolic)? But at the same time, I realize most people don't have the time to research and get stubborn and get caught up in old ways of thinking, and getting in petty angry arguments with people or doing judgmental ad-hominem attacks won't do jack poo poo. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:I hold nothing against him on it, I was just interested to know if there's any validity to his arguments, especially the volcanism in the arctic one. I rather doubt it. It's all divergent plate boundaries up there, which don't cause volcanic activity. The reason we have volcanoes in a big circle around the Pacific is because the Pacific plate boundaries are mostly convergent. You might try the "oh yeah, then why are our oceans turning to acid?" route.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:That's a new one to me. Typically when people mention volcanic activity re: climate change, it's in the context of CO2 emissions (in my experience, but that's from a more paleo perspective). Geothermal activity in the Arctic isn't anything new though, I mean Iceland uses it for power because it's right on the mid-ocean ridge. Unrelated question: how does the heating of the oceans affect sea life, especially as the deep ocean absorbs much of the recent warming? Warmer oceans should lower O2 content. E: Also thanks for the answers. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Tell him, 'like the President / the American President (depending on the location), I'm not a climate scientist, hence in such complex matters involving (buzzwords such as 'nonlinear dynamics' , 'systems of such high complexity and scale', 'chaos', 'highly dangerous regime/ paradigm shifts/ tipping points') *and* expert knowledge from the climate science field, I prefer not to rely on single indicators, but defer to the well-established scientific consensus based on aggregates developed over decades of peer-reviewed work and the experience behind that work. It is my belief that this consensus has been made clear enough, and that it is high time to move on to resolving this problem.' Basically, humble yourself, do an ad auctoritatem, don't engage, pay attention to the complexity of the problem and change the terms of the conversation, unsubtly indicating that guy is trolling. Better first make sure you pass, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:But at the same time, I realize most people don't have the time to research and get stubborn and get caught up in old ways of thinking, and getting in petty angry arguments with people or doing judgmental ad-hominem attacks won't do jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:This is the part that's weird. He's a statistics professor and those arguments aren't really the stuff of "don't have the time to do research". I mean maybe it's Croatia's (or wherever's) version of low information denialism but matching variances and increments and pretending there is a supremum problem doesn't really sound like it. It smacks of a pretty focused effort to dissemble by people who should know better. So either he's doing it or he paid attention to somebody else who did. I was definitely assuming whatever bpower was about him, it's an assumption that's going to be right 99+% of the time. It's not about whether he's a "bad person", not sure why you keep going there, it's that unless this is a homework question in disguise or something it's a fundamentally dishonest argument about climate change. In my experience, the climate skeptics I've seen are typically people that are politically casual and get all their news from tv or other crap like that and have a poor understanding of world events. People that, if you gave the right information, would probably change their minds. But I've been raised in relatively liberal Southern California (away from the more wealthy, conservative OC types) my whole life so I haven't come across a lot of dedicated right-wingers, usually at worst middle-of-the-road. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
see this, imho, is the *real* climate change denial on the internet: we should do something! millions will die, billions will suffer! irl: I don't want to upset this one undergrad teaching chump at this one school because I might not get as good a grade
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:see this, imho, is the *real* climate change denial That's easy to say when you're not the one sticking your neck out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Unrelated question: how does the heating of the oceans affect sea life, especially as the deep ocean absorbs much of the recent warming? Warmer oceans should lower O2 content. Yes, it affects sea life in big ways. Warmer water allows for a higher concentration of dissolved CO2, which shifts the oceans chemistry to a higher acidity, hindering the formation of calcium carbonate shells in sea life. This has ramifications for the entire ocean food web. link link
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:I hold nothing against him on it, I was just interested to know if there's any validity to his arguments, especially the volcanism in the arctic one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Elotana posted:There was a skeptic meme a few months back where they took a paper that noted volcanic activity under, like, one glacier in the Antarctic, and it got megaphoned into "VOLCANOES, NOT GLOBAL WARMING, CAUSING ANTARCTIC COLLAPSE." The actual scientist responded to a blog's inquiry by gamely replying that the effect they noted was several orders of magnitude smaller and more localized than temperature change, but skeptics had moved onto another SQUIRREL by then. The reason they don't push back and raise a huge stink over their work being taken out of context by skeptics and write up responses etc is primarily because they're too busy being scientists. Additionally I assume that most research facilities have general unwritten/unofficial policies that read something like "keep your head the hell down, we have enough poo poo on the plate to deal with without getting targeted by any of these skeptic organizations." Any time I do contact a researcher directly, I go out of my way to emphasize that I do not own a blog, am not a member of the media, and am not a member of any organization that has anything to do with energy or the environment. Also I make sure that my question is as succinct and specific as possible, even a T/F if I can. Pretty sure I get more responses by removing any possibility of distortion/gotcha bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
bpower posted:edit: I want to clarify something. Most of us accept the scientific consensus, but how many really accept the conclusions? Millions and millions of people are going to die in misery, war ,famine, pestilence, the whole shebang. Thats sounds a bit unhinged doesn't it? You feel like saying "calm down". But if you accept the scientific consensus and believe that we wont change out behaviour then its it guaranteed to happen. Yeah, Im angry about climate change. Good point. This is really my problem, I accept the scientific consensus about climate change but I can't really accept the conclusions, or at least I can't think about them too much. Otherwise things in life seem unbearably futile. And I really don't have time for that kind of thinking. Best thing to do I figure is write letter to politicians about the issue and vote for more environmentalist candidates who actually have a chance of winning. Aside from that, not sure how activist I can or should be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
bpower posted:edit: I want to clarify something. Most of us accept the scientific consensus, but how many really accept the conclusions? Millions and millions of people are going to die in misery, war ,famine, pestilence, the whole shebang. Thats sounds a bit unhinged doesn't it? You feel like saying "calm down". But if you accept the scientific consensus and believe that we wont change out behaviour then its it guaranteed to happen. Yeah, Im angry about climate change. I don't think you have to even consider climate change to believe this will happen...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Also, I don't think the scientific consensus is as nearly as apocalyptic as many extrapolate from it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Yeah, if you don't expect the bolded to happen regardless of climate change you're kind of just shockingly ignorant about reality TBH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Are you guys being willfully obtuse or what? Yeah bads things are going to happen in the future, but climate change is going to cause extra and avoidable bad things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
bpower posted:Are you guys being willfully obtuse or what? Yeah bads things are going to happen in the future, but climate change is going to cause extra and avoidable bad things. Yes? But that doesn't mean the scientific consensus is that if we follow business as usual the apocalypse will happen either. No one in this thread is denying climate change is bad, just pointing out that its impacts shouldn't be taken outside of the scale of similar extra and avoidable bad things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
People who claim that ACC 'makes life seem futile' are just projecting their mental problems onto whatever negative trend they can find. It's going to be a drain on progress but it won't stop it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes? But that doesn't mean the scientific consensus is that if we follow business as usual the apocalypse will happen either. If you're talking about the likes of Richard Tol, Nordhaus and other climate economists fond of their welfare optimisation models, these are full of nifty tricks that smooth out impacts to make a 'clean' cost-benefit analysis (high discount rates, utility functions and Negishi welfare weights). Neoclassical economics has trouble with non-marginal problems and in my view has very little to say about the seriousness of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also, I don't think the scientific consensus is as nearly as apocalyptic as many extrapolate from it. Well the thing is that I don't think there is a scientific consensus regarding the eventual effects. I mean, there's the methane clathrate bomb ticking away on the ocean floor and permafrost. Nobody knows when those might go, and if they do it's game over in a major way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Well the thing is that I don't think there is a scientific consensus regarding the eventual effects. I mean, there's the methane clathrate bomb ticking away on the ocean floor and permafrost. Nobody knows when those might go, and if they do it's game over in a major way. I recall reading (probably in this thread) that we recently figured out that the clathrates were relatively non-threatening in the near future since it takes much longer for the ocean floor to warm sufficiently to release them. Something like 5-10k years at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Struensee posted:That's easy to say when you're not the one sticking your neck out. In the next century, decades after the collapse of civilization in the wake of ecological catastrophe, historians will look back at our foolish destructive times and ask "why didn't that one dude get in a pointless argument with his professor in undergrad and spare us all this misery?" Selfish, selfish 21st century dwellers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I recall reading (probably in this thread) that we recently figured out that the clathrates were relatively non-threatening in the near future since it takes much longer for the ocean floor to warm sufficiently to release them. Something like 5-10k years at least. Have they been spontaneously releasing in large volume for centuries and nobody noticed it happening right up until five years ago, then? Papers had given me the impression that while the volume is not an immediate concern, the currently witnessed rate of release was unprecedented and rapidly increasing. Rime fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Rime posted:Have they been spontaneously releasing in large volume for centuries and nobody noticed it happening right up until five years ago, then? I was under the impression that while we've been aware of methane release from the ocean floor (I think this was a big scientific explanation for the Bermuda triangle a ways back), we had no way of accurately measuring it over an area that is mostly empty. Only recently have scientists been going up there to test it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I recall reading (probably in this thread) that we recently figured out that the clathrates were relatively non-threatening in the near future since it takes much longer for the ocean floor to warm sufficiently to release them. Something like 5-10k years at least. Oh sure, ocean floor clathrates are not the immediate threat, but arctic permafrost clathrates are currently being released in rather spectacular ways. How much of it is going to be released by the end of the century nobody knows, but personally I'm loving terrified about the implications it could have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Well the thing is that I don't think there is a scientific consensus regarding the eventual effects. I mean, there's the methane clathrate bomb ticking away on the ocean floor and permafrost. Nobody knows when those might go, and if they do it's game over in a major way. Do you have any scientific support for the idea that if the methane clathrate "bomb" occurs it would be "game over in a major way"? Or is just personal extrapolation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have any scientific support for the idea that if the methane clathrate "bomb" occurs it would be "game over in a major way"? Or is just personal extrapolation? http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533.1 http://symposium2010.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/3/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf The first highlights that a 1000% increase would be enough to raise global temperatures by 6* or more in under 80 years, which would put us well into the risk of extinction. The latter asserts the impending release of 50gt of methane at potentially any time, increasing our atmospheric concentration by a factor of 12. Rime fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have any scientific support for the idea that if the methane clathrate "bomb" occurs it would be "game over in a major way"? Or is just personal extrapolation? I'm not a climate scientist or a paleontologist, but my understanding is that methane clathrate release is heavily implicated in the Permian-Triassic extinction event (the one largest in history), as are anoxic bacteria. Granted, it was a massive event and it's pretty much impossible to establish direct causalities, but a quick google scholar search turns up clathrate amounts measured in tens of thousands of gigatons in the ocean floor and hundreds of gigatons in permafrost, though much of it is not under threat from currently predicted amounts of warming. How much of it is, and if that will be enough to set off a runaway chain-reaction, I haven't got a clue. The scary thing is though that once it goes off, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. It would mean the end of our species. lollontee fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The scary thing is though that once it goes off, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. It would mean the end of our species.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Why would it be the end? Maybe a population drop but why extinction? Because life on this planet relies on species diversity and they'll all be getting decimated. Also, there's a population threshold that if a species drops below, it becomes increasingly unlikely that they'll be lost to inbreeding and/or local disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Rime posted:http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533.1 Do any of those studies actually mention societal impacts, I couldn't find any references to them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Because life on this planet relies on species diversity and they'll all be getting decimated. Also, there's a population threshold that if a species drops below, it becomes increasingly unlikely that they'll be lost to inbreeding and/or local disaster. We aren't like every other species because we can artificially modify populations and the environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:We aren't like every other species because we can artificially modify populations and the environment. Beavers would like a word with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Yes, we would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:We aren't like every other species because we can artificially modify populations and the environment. We are kind of dependent upon the ecosystems that these specias make up however. We don't really have anywhere else to go
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Why would it be the end? Maybe a population drop but why extinction? Because those clathrates go, we'd be talking about warming beyond 6 degrees celsius and anything up to 12 or even beyond that. That would guarantee an ocean system so acidified and oxygen deprived that anaerobic life begins to take over. And once that happens, everything dies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Oh goody, we're delving into the "yes Earth will be a horrific hellscape filled primarily with cockroaches and pigeons, but TECHNICALLY we will still be able to live so who gives a poo poo" thing again. Who cares if the majority of edible ocean life dies, there's a hydroponic lettuce farm in Japan?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do any of those studies actually mention societal impacts, I couldn't find any references to them? I'm phone posting now but no, they just set up that there's enough at-risk methane deposits to raise temperatures significantly in our lifetimes. There are studies and projections regarding what will happen if temperatures rise, see: https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-TS_FINAL.pdf, specifically page 63 onwards. Tl;DR: Everything which we rely on to live, dies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Oh goody, we're delving into the "yes Earth will be a horrific hellscape filled primarily with cockroaches and pigeons, but TECHNICALLY we will still be able to live so who gives a poo poo" thing again. Who cares if the majority of edible ocean life dies, there's a hydroponic lettuce farm in Japan? What you're saying would make more sense if the scientific consensus even approached BAU == "majority of edible ocean life dies" but it doesn't. Rime posted:https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-TS_FINAL.pdf, specifically page 63 onwards. AR5 says nothing like "majority of edible ocean life dies".
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:27
|
|