|
Arkane: so sure climate change is not happening, investing "fairly good-sized positions in a couple of oil servicing companies over the past couple of weeks" specializing in servicing offshore drilling 
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Arkane posted:Yes I think it is a great example of fetishizing climate outcomes for political ends. Another example would be duck monster's posts in this thread. Paraphrasing one of his posts, "the hiatus doesn't exist because it is getting warmer in Australia." I mean if you're telling me that people aren't completely committed to climate change bringing an apocalypse, I'd say click on page 1 of this thread, buckle up/secure all small children, and then start reading. "You mad bro?" You're good at this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:For those of you who were asking for it, is this really better than kid-chat? kid chat was really bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
katlington posted:"You secretly love climate change." No kidding. It's like he's taking all his argumentation tips straight from the Christian apologist playbook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Yeah...what I posted doesn't have to do with sea ice. East antarctica is gaining ice mass on the land (and west antarctica is losing sea ice). Someone said it up-thread, but it's worth repeating -- the difference is stark enough that phrasing the numbers as you have is dishonest. The implication of " East antarctica is gaining ice mass on the land (and west antarctica is losing sea ice)" is that it balances out, when it does not. "According to my bank, my savings account is gaining value (and my credit card debt is increasing (at 1.5x my increase in savings)) so it's a wash. Also, if you think I'm headed for bankruptcy then you're some kind of debt fetishist."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
sadus posted:Arkane: so sure climate change is not happening, investing "fairly good-sized positions in a couple of oil servicing companies over the past couple of weeks" specializing in servicing offshore drilling Over 100% of my portfolio as of a month ago was in solar companies. Weird huh? I guess my posts were pristine then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:West Antarctica is losing sea ice at a far faster rate than the best estimates of East Antarctica gaining ice, however. I never mentioned antarctic sea ice once in this recent discussion...you mentioned it man. I've strictly been discussing land ice, which could contribute to sea level rise (either positively or negatively).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You stated "the sensitivity of the earth's climate to CO2 increases could be exaggerated". Cloud cover, water vapor, albedo and etc. are altered by temperature, not CO2. I think you have a very wrong impression of the climate sensitivity literature if you think that Lewis/Curry is alone in this. This is a topic that I've posted on a lot in this thread, perhaps more than any other topic in the past couple of years. Placid Marmot posted:How do these graphs - from 1905, at least (before which we can both agree that human CO2 emissions were minor, at just a few percent of current total emissions) - not show a correlation? It is incredibly unlikely that the rise from 1910 to 1940, which was quite dramatic, could be caused by a ~5-10ppm increase of CO2 (1.5-3.5%). It is a near certainty that natural variations, be it oceans or whatever, caused the precipitous rise. It's disingenuous to roll the pre-1940 numbers into a CO2-centric argument. Placid Marmot posted:That paper gives a rate for the whole of Antarctica of -58gT per year, accelerating by -15gT per year, yet you saw fit to mention the accelerating increase in East Antarctic ice mass with equal weight as the accelerating decrease in West Antarctic. Can you not see how dishonest this is? You posted the same link twice, so I am not sure what paper you're talking about, but the one mentioned here is a year older than the one I cited. I don't think I described it dishonestly...you seem really eager to think so, though, I guess. If we want to bottom line it, the sea level rise from global glacial melt is negligible on scales that would matter for humans, and the physical limitations on acceleration rates constrain apocalyptic sea rise scenarios. And they'd be doubly constrained by low(er) climate sensitivity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think you have a very wrong impression of the climate sensitivity literature if you think that Lewis/Curry is alone in this. This is a topic that I've posted on a lot in this thread, perhaps more than any other topic in the past couple of years. This is indeed an open question. While we've had historical temperature/GHG increases, the proxy indicators to which we have access are blunt and tricky to evaluate. Different models assign different values to climate sensitivity, depending on a very large number of other interlocking values. That's true for a lot of values in climate models, though: most individual models aren't particularly reliable at generating an accurate representation of the overall picture. Climate models, like other tools, are often designed for very specific purposes and with very particular assumptions in mind. That's not a criticism of climate modeling, but rather a reflection of the fact that doing successful earth science is a difficult and variegated business, with many different ends and methods coexisting in the same department. This kind of divergent pluralism is why we don't rely on individual models to generate our predictions. Instead, we practice ensemble modeling, where we integrate the output from a large number of very different models to produce an "averaged" prediction out of the aggregate. Appealing to the output of individual models is, in general, bad practice. What we're interested in is the ensemble prediction of a large number of diverse, independent models constructed with different parameterizations and different assumptions. This strategy has been borne out empirically: ensemble predictions do much, much better at matching empirical observation than the predictions of any individual model. People trying to sell you a prediction or policy based on an individual model (or on a family of very similar models) usually have an ulterior agenda, in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Arkane posted:If we want to bottom line it, the sea level rise from global glacial melt is negligible on scales that would matter for humans, and the physical limitations on acceleration rates constrain apocalyptic sea rise scenarios. And they'd be doubly constrained by low(er) climate sensitivity. Ah, must have missed Ctrl-V. Here are the two papers, without that comma messing up the URL: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract If you have a life expectancy of ten years, or you are not one of the 200 million+ people currently living on a coastal flood plain, or if your food sources are not at risk of salination by higher sea levels, or if mass migration from flooding areas don't threaten you, then yes, glacial melt is negligible on a human timescale. Sea level rise is NOT constrained by "low(er) climate sensitivity", even if the one paper that you came back to this thread to post says that such a thing exists, because we are already at over 400ppm and glacial melt already makes up over a third of sea level rise - even if CO2 stays the same (lol) or if adding more CO2 has no warming effect, the ice is still going to melt at the same rate and the oceans are still going to expand at the same rate. And again, again, again, you have not told us why this one paper has rendered the rest of climate science worthless. Might it just be that it agrees with your view?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
quote:And again, again, again, you have not told us why this one paper has rendered the rest of climate science worthless. Might it just be that it agrees with your view? And LC14 as well as Lewis' CA posts are fundamentally a rehash of the approach used in Otto, it's just Lewis occasionally feeds in new data in a sort of lukewarmer's ratchet; whenever new data comes out that computes to a lower result, he seizes on it and calls that the "new" "best" estimate. When new data doesn't, he attacks (or ignores) the paper. Elotana fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
The only thing better than kid chat is laymen with little-to-zero germane knowledge debating the intricacies of climate models
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
The god-drat germans aint got nothin to do with it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The only thing better than kid chat is laymen with little-to-zero germane knowledge debating the intricacies of climate models This is a learning space 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The only thing better than kid chat is laymen with little-to-zero germane knowledge debating the intricacies of climate models This discussion has actually been pretty sophisticated, considering that most of the people here don't have relevant academic credentials.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Well here's a small  momentCosta Rica has only used renewable energy this year http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-this-year.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Bandanna posted:Well here's a small Yes but how many kids did they have
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Incidentally, some of the papers people have referred to here look like they might be behind a paywall. If anyone wants access to them, send me a PM and I'll be happy to grab PDFs via my university proxy for you (as long as I don't get inundated with tons of requests). Edit: Oh, I guess I don't have access to PMs. Post here, I guess, and I'll do what I can. DoctorDilettante fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Crosspost from the US Politics thread: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money quote:The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change. Likelyhood of any of the poo poo-heads running the gulf states will change their minds because of this? Probably very low. But I feel its a step in the right direction to start actually acting like the science question is over, and that mitigation must be based on reality and not politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Nice to see Arkane is back. Welcome welcome
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
All that ice melting into the ocean might be slowing down the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2554.html They also made a Day After Tomorrow/interview mashup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-bXLPLCyek
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
What do you guys think of Lovelock's proposition that the human race and its technological evolution are in fact another form of natural selection, and human civilization, through the Anthropocene, is beginning a new era of the history of life. The mass extinctions and radical reshaping of the Earth's ecosystems due to man is in fact a natural process of survival of the fittest, not in opposition to nature but in fact the logical endpoint of it. Not to say that global warming or the harm it is, has, and will cause and the destruction of habitats is in any way beneficial for most of humanity in the long term. Lovelock argues that an Earth dominated by mankind would have a higher chance of spreading and maintaining life for the next several billion years than one without, but that still seems yet to be proven. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
How are u posted:Likelyhood of any of the poo poo-heads running the gulf states will change their minds because of this? Probably very low. But I feel its a step in the right direction to start actually acting like the science question is over, and that mitigation must be based on reality and not politics. GOP governors and state legislatures have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to leave free federal money on the table in order to score political points. (See also: Medicaid expansion, high speed rail) This won't change a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:What do you guys think of Lovelock's proposition that the human race and its technological evolution are in fact another form of natural selection, and human civilization, through the Anthropocene, is beginning a new era of the history of life. The mass extinctions and radical reshaping of the Earth's ecosystems due to man is in fact a natural process of survival of the fittest, not in opposition to nature but in fact the logical endpoint of it. Not to say that global warming or the harm it is, has, and will cause and the destruction of habitats is in any way beneficial for most of humanity in the long term. One way to look at it is that eventually, all complex life on earth is going to die out completely with or without humanity. The only way that complex lifeforms from earth have a chance on (more) long term survival is mankind or other similar technological sophisticated species that might eventually evolve. In order to get to that level of technology, we naturally stumble and gently caress up. But as long as we pick ourselves up and learn from our mistakes, it should eventually lead to a better outcome than what inactivity would lead to. Examples of humanity learning from its mistakes and improving on them is already apparent by the simple fact that green energy is being developed. I guess the most obvious way to disagree with this, is arguing if other species would go through similar technological advances or not. But that means superimposing the only evidence (documented history) with what will at best be an very in-depth sci-fi story. Batham fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:What do you guys think of Lovelock's proposition that the human race and its technological evolution are in fact another form of natural selection, and human civilization, through the Anthropocene, is beginning a new era of the history of life. The mass extinctions and radical reshaping of the Earth's ecosystems due to man is in fact a natural process of survival of the fittest, not in opposition to nature but in fact the logical endpoint of it. Not to say that global warming or the harm it is, has, and will cause and the destruction of habitats is in any way beneficial for most of humanity in the long term. I wish people would stop abusing the theory of evolution to justify political opinions. Evolution describes a natural process, it offers exactly zero advice about the very political and moral question of what we should do about climate change and the ongoing global ecological crisis that we are directly responsible for. I mean yeah, I know it's the most profound scientific theory that we've ever discovered, but for gently caress's sake 
lollontee fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
How are u posted:Crosspost from the US Politics thread: Related to this, here's the Florida senate basically laughing at the head of emergency management because he refuses to even repeat "climate change" due to the reported ban on the term by gov Rick Scott.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:What do you guys think of Lovelock's proposition that the human race and its technological evolution are in fact another form of natural selection, and human civilization, through the Anthropocene, is beginning a new era of the history of life. The mass extinctions and radical reshaping of the Earth's ecosystems due to man is in fact a natural process of survival of the fittest, not in opposition to nature but in fact the logical endpoint of it. Not to say that global warming or the harm it is, has, and will cause and the destruction of habitats is in any way beneficial for most of humanity in the long term. Ascribing teleology to an unguided natural process is religion, so bully for him I guess but I don't feel like converting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Related to this, here's the Florida senate basically laughing at the head of emergency management because he refuses to even repeat "climate change" due to the reported ban on the term by gov Rick Scott.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:What do you guys think of Lovelock's proposition that the human race and its technological evolution are in fact another form of natural selection The rest of it is 1st year biology student gets high kinda stuff, far as I can tell. E:phone posting is my excuse for the double post. If I get to a computer and remember this one will be shortened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Lovelock He's conflating uses of the word "natural" to argue that we, as the only species capable of inducing artificial selection, have no ethical or moral requirement to do so nor care about the consequences of doing so. Is this guy a big fan of Ayn Rand, by chance? Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Humans are part of nature and therefore all the damage we do is part of nature and we shouldn't do anything about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Humans are part of nature and therefore all the damage we do is part of nature and we shouldn't do anything about it God did give us the Earth to use, not to conserve until it gets moldy and you have to throw it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
RealClimate: What's going on in the North Atlantic? (Has it been a week yet since the last "Oh gently caress..." story? Oh well.) Basically this is about a small region on the North Atlantic which has defied the aggregate trend of increasing temperature, and in fact had the coldest winter on record last year. However, the climate models do apparently predict this when the Gulf Stream System weakens - a possibility that according to the evidence being gathered, may already be happening when the models had the possibility of this occurring - if it would at all - much later in the century. Bear in mind I'm posting this largely for wank material for all of us who naturally get off on negative CH stories. Ugghhhh almost there quote:The North Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland is practically the only region of the world that has defied global warming and even cooled. Last winter there even was the coldest on record – while globally it was the hottest on record. Our recent study (Rahmstorf et al. 2015) attributes this to a weakening of the Gulf Stream System, which is apparently unique in the last thousand years. quote:It happens to be just that area for which climate models predict a cooling when the Gulf Stream System weakens (experts speak of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation or AMOC, as part of the global thermohaline circulation). That this might happen as a result of global warming is discussed in the scientific community since the 1980s – since Wally Broecker’s classical Nature article “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?” Meanwhile evidence is mounting that the long-feared circulation decline is already well underway. quote:Also in 2014 we again find a remarkable cold bubble over the northern Atlantic – as a look at the NASA website shows. 2014 was globally the warmest year on record, 1 °C warmer than the average for 1880-1920. But the subpolar Atlantic was 1-2 °C colder than that baseline. And even more recently, NOAA last week released the stunning temperature analysis for the past winter shown in Fig. 4. That winter was globally the warmest since records began in 1880. But in the subpolar North Atlantic, it was the coldest on record! That suggests the decline of the circulation has progressed even further now than we documented in the paper. quote:If our analysis is correct, then this indicates that climate models underestimate the weakening of the Atlantic circulation in response to global warming – probably because the flow in these models is too stable (see Hofmann and Rahmstorf 2009). Although these models predict a significant weakening for the future, they do not suggest this as early as the observations show it (see Fig. 2 of our paper). That the real flow may be more unstable than previously thought would be bad news for the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
The ice is currently so thick and pressurized between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that the USCG St. Laurent, our largest arctic icebreaker, couldn't get through to rescue a trapped passenger ferry. "Thick and pressurized" translates to 7m/25' of sea ice, in this case. Things are getting pretty weird alright. Rime fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that's the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent , which was one of the first surface vessels to reach the North Pole (paired with U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Polar Sea). That ship is no joke and if ice is that bad, it does seem that something's hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
On a more positive note, here's a thing that popped up on my Facebook feed: This 14-year-old will fix the planet before she graduates Penn already grasps a key insight that almost every environmentalist has encountered in his or her life: If there’s inaction, it’s not because we’re apathetic. It’s because we’re overwhelmed. During her school visits, of course she meets young people who don’t care about the planet. “But there are a lot who do care that just don’t know what to do,” she says. “What’s going on in the environment seems like such a big deal that they have to do a big action, and they don’t know what that action should be.” And it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, this fear that whatever we do is too small to matter. “The reason why it seems like there’s nothing happening,” she says, “is because people are scared to do anything because they think that nothing’s going to happen!” Therein lies the rub, but take it from a pro: “The smallest action leads to the biggest changes,” she insists. “It just matters so much. It has a big ripple effect, whether that person knows it or not. And that person might have been scared and might have been doubtful. But they went ahead and did it anyway.” Her sage advice, then, to all the frustrated environmentalists out there? “You don’t have to have a ton of confidence to do everything you want to do. Go ahead and be afraid. Change will definitely come.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:RealClimate: What's going on in the North Atlantic? -40 winters for Finland are back! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
There's definitely something to be said about being overwhelmed in general. There's so much stuff that demands attention. Do we spend time learning about and trying to do something about the plethora of social issues (gay marriage, racism, immigration, etc.), political issues (elections, primaries, etc.), international issues (Middle East, Russia, Latin America, etc.), economic issues (income inequality, sexism in tech, etc.), or climate change? I say "or" because people have limited time and attention. The average person works 45-50 hours a week, and would rather spend the rest of their time socializing with friends and family or on leisure activities rather than reading articles and books and forum threads to educate themselves about everything and then try to figure out what they, as individuals, can do about the topic. This is why I don't really see much hope when it comes to tackling climate change: it requires everyone to care and change their actions, but most people won't simply because they don't have the mental bandwidth for it. I myself struggle with keeping up with everything, and without the various informative threads on D&D, I probably couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Lovelock argues that an Earth dominated by mankind would have a higher chance of spreading and maintaining life for the next several billion years than one without, but that still seems yet to be proven.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Humans are part of nature and therefore all the damage we do is part of nature and we shouldn't do anything about it I went to a talk by Robert Zubrin last night on human expeditions to Mars, and while it was a very interesting talk, I then looked up his other work outside of The Case for Mars and found that he had only recently written this: Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism  He gets very  very quickly as well in that book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 01:20
|
|
