|
Hello Arkane. What is your opinion on the revision to the RSS temperature dataset that eliminated the so called pause?
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Squalid posted:Hello Arkane. What is your opinion on the revision to the RSS temperature dataset that eliminated the so called pause? Do not engage Arkane. He's the Ayn Rand of Climatology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Hello Arkane. What is your opinion on the revision to the RSS temperature dataset that eliminated the so called pause? RSS has been an outlier for awhile, so this is not surprising. The hiatus was not an artifact of RSS, though. Both the ground and satellite observations showed a near zero trend starting around 2001 through 2014. The strong El Nino has perhaps finally ended it, although it could be a respite. The most compelling explanation I've seen for the hiatus is that it is due to cycles within the Atlantic ocean. It's postulated to last until somewhere in the neighborhood of 2025 if it is indeed a function of that: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988 Placid Marmot posted:This increase in leaf area was between 1982 and 2015; can you point out on this chart where this increase in leaf area has mitigated "significant amounts of atmospheric CO2"? You read into my post what you wanted to read, instead of what I actually posted. Human carbon emissions are clearly outpacing natural carbon sinks. By what margin, we don't know. What I said was over the next few decades, these sinks could reduce the increases. Because atmospheric co2 projections rely on compounding emissions growth, small changes to the year on year multiplier can have large impacts at the end point. For instance (these numbers are purely illustrative), if you start with 3ppm and compound it by 2% annually, you end up with 1050ppm in 2100. If you compound it annually by 1.5%, you end up with about 900ppm. A minuscule year on year change has a rather large impact over a long enough period of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Notice how Arkane doesn't link to actual scientific papers, just pop sci articles from the BBC and other news sites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Notice how Arkane doesn't link to actual scientific papers, just pop sci articles from the BBC and other news sites. Is this a parody of a troll post? I've referenced two papers. For the greening paper, I linked to the journal...so in your mad dash to write your shitpost, I guess you missed that. For the Atlantic ocean study, I discussed that across many different posts when it was published including here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&pagenumber=167&perpage=40#post435295253 and here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&userid=107386&perpage=40&pagenumber=5#post433920283 Both times I linked to the paper. Not like it matters, since the papers are frequently behind paywalls. Here's a good write-up on that paper & the oceans generally: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d=tw-share&_r=0 By the way, I've been discussing AMO as a possible culprit for the hiatus since at least 2010. This is not some new and controversial theory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Is this a parody of a troll post? The problem is that those articles are essentially saying that global warming is occurring, but some natural mechanisms might have slowed down this warming in recent years. Of course you draw your own conclusions to fit your own worldview, which is that the atmosphere hasnt been warming since 1998, or that if it has it's only because of ENSO events.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:The problem is that those articles are essentially saying that global warming is occurring, but some natural mechanisms might have slowed down this warming in recent years. Good, you get it. This is exactly what I am saying. Mystic_Shadow posted:Your own worldview, which is that the atmosphere hasnt been warming since 1998, or that if it has it's only because of ENSO events. This is your fantasy of what I am saying. I've not posted these statements anywhere. So you're now onto two posts in a row of making random poo poo up. What's in store for post number 3?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Never mind, should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Seems like an opportune time to bring up Richard Muller's spectrum of participants in the climate debate: https://www.quora.com/How-many-climate-change-denialists-are-there-in-the-US/answer/Richard-Muller-3 quote:How many climate change denialists are there in the US? The majority of posters in these climate threads on SA I would say fall into the category of alarmists. In fact, this forum is the single most alarmist place for climate discussion I've ever seen and I read a lot of climate stuff. Just batshit insane discussion about the downfall of humanity and civilization posted on a near constant basis. I think someone in a previous thread suggested that we non-ironically start killing oil executives, and another that we need a worldwide dictatorship. Anyway, I'm probably around 50% lukewarmist, 50% skeptic. I'd say there are serious flaws in climate reconstructions, but on the rest of the topics I'm fairly on board with everything. The climate models are obviously the biggest point of contention. When compared against observations, they've so far been trash, and alarmists ignore that, while the rest of the list embraces that discussion. Overall, I think this place is largely scientifically-ignorant and practically brainwashed on alarmism. So my 50% lukewarmist/50% skeptic is met with calls of "denier." Mystic_Shadow seems to be a good example of an alarmist not even pretending to read my posts or engage with me honestly. Probably out of his depth, if I had to guess. Arkane fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Apr 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Arkane posted:
Dear god I'm in agreement with arkane
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Dear god I'm in agreement with arkane I think there's a middle ground between the sentiment that humanity is doomed by the year 2100 (which I would say maybe a handful of posters actually believe) and the idea that manmade climate change isn't something to be worried about and that advances in technology will save us from this thing that we shouldn't be worried about anyway (which is Arkane's stance.) The sea level is slowly rising, which will affect populations in very low-lying areas (think Bangladesh and islands in the Pacific Ocean.) Certain parts of the globe are seeing an increase in droughts, other parts will see an increase in floods, etc. There is an increase in CO2 the likes of which we haven't seen on a geological time scale. Oceans are acidifying at a rapid rate. It is happening right now. There are natural cycles that do the same thing but they do not act on the same timescales. This is not controversial stuff to climatologists. It is not the end of humanity as we know it but it will bring a lot of pain to a lot of people. To us first-worlders, probably not as much. Of course, to understand the effects of all that on the frequency and magnitude of tornadoes, hurricanes, and other meteorological disasters you probably need to have studied this subject for many many years, which very few posters here can claim to have done. And no, a degree in engineering or geology isn't the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Oh, good, we're re-defining "alarmists" as "They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical." I'm glad we're coupling "danger is imminent" with "scare tactics are appropriate" so as to muddy the waters. This list basically defines the entire scientific climate change community as "warmists" lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The majority of posters in these climate threads on SA I would say fall into the category of alarmists. In fact, this forum is the single most alarmist place for climate discussion I've ever seen and I read a lot of climate stuff. Just batshit insane discussion about the downfall of humanity and civilization posted on a near constant basis. I think someone in a previous thread suggested that we non-ironically start killing oil executives, and another that we need a worldwide dictatorship. quote:Anyway, I'm probably around 50% lukewarmist, 50% skeptic. I'd say there are serious flaws in climate reconstructions, but on the rest of the topics I'm fairly on board with everything. Out of curiosity: In the last thread, I asked you if - wait, let me find it 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)? Arkane posted:Not aware of any, no
quote:Overall, I think this place is largely scientifically-ignorant and practically brainwashed on alarmism. So my 50% lukewarmist/50% skeptic is met with calls of "denier."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Arkane is pretty much right about this thread. I mean, somehow the guy who regularly uses this as an E/N thread to post how sadbrains climate change makes him has not been laughed out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Seems like an opportune time to bring up Richard Muller's spectrum of participants in the climate debate: This classification is obviously bad because it doesn't allow for the possibility that global warming can be a serious threat. The categories are a set of thin strawmen designed to corral the reader into noted-non-climate scientist Richard Muller's personal beliefs. Setting aside the fact that Muller has been famously late in accepting climate science, and that he is still behind the curve, the fundamental logical structure of the article is poorly formed and non-scientific. This part in particular strikes me: quote:Exaggerators. They know the science but exaggerate for the public good. They feel the public doesn’t find an 0.64°C change threatening, so they have to cherry-pick and distort a little—for a good cause. What year was this written where .64C is the extent of the warming we're facing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Arkane posted:What I said was over the next few decades, these sinks could reduce the increases. Because atmospheric co2 projections rely on compounding emissions growth, small changes to the year on year multiplier can have large impacts at the end point. For instance (these numbers are purely illustrative), if you start with 3ppm and compound it by 2% annually, you end up with 1050ppm in 2100. If you compound it annually by 1.5%, you end up with about 900ppm. A minuscule year on year change has a rather large impact over a long enough period of time. The leaves ARE the sinks and they already exist and have done nothing to reduce the rate of CO2 increase, which that chart shows has accelerated over the pertinent time period. Even if you claim that this increase in leaf area delayed 400ppm by a few months (quite possible), the amount of extra leaves that the planet can accomodate is limited by numerous factors (already mentioned, above) and thus the rate of additional leaves per year must decrease over time, which is the opposite of what would be required if they were even a significant carbon sink in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
A more careful reading of that poo poo article turned up that its from his book "physics for presidents" which was published in 2008. Muller himself states in 2012 that he was a skeptic in 2008 and that he was rapidly converted to the science once he set out to study it himself: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html quote:Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. That is a 2012 quote from him. 3 years prior was the publication of those categories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
oh come on now, killing oil exec's is just plain good policy for *many* reasons
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Wasting time responding to Arkane is a fools errand, just put him on ignore and move along. We have bigger things to worry about, like Falling oceanic oxygen levels. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The climate models are obviously the biggest point of contention. When compared against observations, they've so far been trash, and alarmists ignore that, while the rest of the list embraces that discussion. Rime posted:Wasting time responding to Arkane is a fools errand, just put him on ignore and move along.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Arkane is that guy who sends a stupid message to a huge email list, causing dozens of people to reply-to-all with snarky put-downs, and almost as many people to respond with "everyone stop replying, you're just making it worse!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Rime posted:Wasting time responding to Arkane is a fools errand, just put him on ignore and move along. I seem to remember reading about something like this years ago. That chemistry of the oceans or atmosphere could get all hosed up cause of climate change. Not sure how you could adapt to that one on any level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Interesting article about "carbon farming" in Australia: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/apr/28/could-carbon-farming-be-the-answer-for-a-clapped-out-australia Another article about sustainable farming certification: http://www.greenbiz.com/article/are-sustainable-farming-certifications-making-difference Surprise Giraffe posted:I seem to remember reading about something like this years ago. That chemistry of the oceans or atmosphere could get all hosed up cause of climate change. Not sure how you could adapt to that one on any level. Not well. At that point, you're probably talking about geoengineering. There was a study I read last summer about how you could theoretically sequester a lot of the CO2 absorbed by the ocean by using powdered olivine, which was an attractive prospect since it's one of the most plentiful substances on Earth. It isn't anywhere near cost-effective, however, but I could see crap like that being greenlit very quickly, and probably without enough research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Dear god I'm in agreement with arkane Well then you are wrong because Arkane is a straight up denialist who is always wrong. Fix yourself. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well then you are wrong because Arkane is a straight up denialist who is always wrong. I don't know he links some pretty convincing papers
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:I don't know he links some pretty convincing papers He's a AGW denialist. That's all you need to know. His entire goal has been to prove that: 1. AGW is not real And 2. Humans are not causing it. So, no, anything he links is either a misquoted article or straight up fabrications
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
I like how he read the list and picked the exact opposite of the correct thing of what people in the thread would call him. Kind of sums up his whole history in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
You know that thing that god people say when they try to come up with a reason to have a religion: "but......what if you're wrong?" It sort of works if you apply it to climate change deniers, skeptics, lukewarmist, lutefisks and whatever other categories there were in that list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
i am harry posted:You know that thing that god people say when they try to come up with a reason to have a religion: "but......what if you're wrong?" It sort of works if you apply it to climate change deniers, skeptics, lukewarmist, lutefisks and whatever other categories there were in that list. but that makes you sound like an r/athiest checkmate climateailures 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 20:26
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
i am harry posted:You know that thing that god people say when they try to come up with a reason to have a religion: "but......what if you're wrong?" It sort of works if you apply it to climate change deniers, skeptics, lukewarmist, lutefisks and whatever other categories there were in that list. We will have raised our standards of living and improved the environment all for naught!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...ate-change-casequote:As for the judge's ruling on extraordinary circumstances, "It's not climate change that's the extraordinary circumstance, it's that this agency hasn't done what it's legally obligated to do for almost 30 years," Rodgers told me after the courtroom let out. "And [Judge Hill] recognized that a court has a responsibility to step in and protect the rights of young people that are being harmed by climate change. This is world-changing and it's amazing."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
I love the update at the bottom: "We've actually been serious about acting this entire time and the court's ruling is really just an affirmation." The first in a long line of officials to say they've been onboard with stronger green initiatives this whole time? An outlier?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
It's unclear to me how this won't be overturned on appeal.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
I can't wait for this to become reality in 20-25 years!quote:http://gizmodo.com/extreme-heat-will-make-parts-of-the-middle-east-and-afr-1774311994
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:46
|
|
On the bright side that will probably end Dubai, but of course the assholes running the show there won't be the ones who end up cooking in the end.  I wouldn't be surprised if pressures from this sparked a nuclear exchange between Israel and Palestine either even if they're not as thoroughly scorched, which will be great when nuts start screaming about the apocalypse as predicted in Left Behind. Hopefully there won't be enough of them left by then to do more than scream about it, but then nobody would have guessed Trump would become the no-poo poo GOP frontrunner for president 20 years ago either.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Ah, there's that Middle Eastern death spiral I was mentioning a few months ago. Because that'll be happening. How many hundreds of millions will we be forced to bar from asylum/let die in the 2050s just in order to keep feeding ourselves in this Malthusian catastrophe?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
I experienced 50 degrees Celsius last year in southeastern Turkey. It's hard to put that kind of heat into words: the air hurts to breathe, it's hard to stay conscious in the shade, entering the sun for just a minute is like stepping into the flame of a BBQ. You can't even swim in rivers, because the water acts as a magnifying glass and cooks you. By 8am it was over 30 degrees, and it was still over 22 at midnight. I saw grass spontaneously combust twice in the same day. Maybe there was glass or something nearby to cause it, but it just went poof. I drank 8L of water and was still dehydrated. You can't comprehend that suffering until you've felt it. Civilization won't survive that if it spreads. Rime fucked around with this message at 03:14 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Rime posted:I experienced 50 degrees Celsius last year in southeastern Turkey. It's hard to put that kind of heat into words: the air hurts to breathe, it's hard to stay conscious in the shade, entering the sun for just a minute is like stepping into the flame of a BBQ. You can't even swim in rivers, because the water acts as a magnifying glass and cooks you. By 8am it was over 30 degrees, and it was still over 22 at midnight. lmao Grass, even dry grass, requires a temperature of well over 200 degrees F to ignite. Your claim is suspect, at best.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:00 |
|
Rime posted:I experienced 50 degrees Celsius last year in southeastern Turkey. It's hard to put that kind of heat into words: the air hurts to breathe, it's hard to stay conscious in the shade, entering the sun for just a minute is like stepping into the flame of a BBQ. You can't even swim in rivers, because the water acts as a magnifying glass and cooks you. By 8am it was over 30 degrees, and it was still over 22 at midnight. I've dealt with summers in Yuma that reach around 49 degrees C (120 Farenheit) occasionally but considering the averages I keep seeing listed I realize I actually can't speak to what a regular pounding of 50 C or even 45 C as an average temperature is like by comparison. That won't stop a lot of other people from blowing it off using similar logic until the mass die-offs/disasters make that clearly not like anything humans have seen before though.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 03:46
|
|