Author Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)  (Read 379711 times)

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #520 on: April 4, 2013, 11:11:38 pm »
I've no time for fighting, Carlos.

I'm too busy worrying about how climate change is, er, expanding the Antarctic ice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487



Not strictly correct - Antarctic sea ice is expanding, but overall Antarctica is losing ice. At an accelerating rate. Not that that would invalidate the theory of man-made climate change, but I'm sure you're aware of that, being the true agnostic that you are.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #521 on: April 5, 2013, 02:32:25 am »

Erm, don't mean to be pushy but is that it? I mean, it is entirely up to you to put flesh on the bones of your stated 'agnostic' position, but from where I'm sitting, I don't see much impartiality so far.

You did say you believe in the scientific consensus - but that you don't much trust science these days (or am I getting you mixed up).

Other than that, you have popped up here and there to seemingly demonstrate how doubtful the science is with some distinctly cherry picked articles (one being over 10 yrs old) that show nothing in particular upon any kind of examination (but I bet they look great on the skeptic blogs where they pat each other on the back about what a great job their doing 'proving' what a green scam it all is).

On the balance of what you have written, I see you pushing harder one way than in the other. So, that is my skeptical position - that you are not at all agnostic and that you find yourself in closer agreement with the anti climate science position.

So please correct me if I have misinterpreted both your tone and posts in this area thus far - my apologies in advance if that is the case. 

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #522 on: April 6, 2013, 09:53:00 am »

Thankyou!

Nice to see someone else on the side of common sense posting. This is what I have been saying all along.

We just don't have the modelling technology to be able to predict the effect of human activity and its modulation on global warming.

The negative effects on economic growth - the only thing that will lift people out of poverty - could be disastrous and should not be implemented on a "because I say so" argument by the enviro-Mentalists.

We have comparable levels of data and computer modelling for the financial markets but economics is not classed as a hard "science" in which we can make accurate long term predictions. The technology simply doesn't exist yet.

Just a warning Wescotty - as you will see from the thread the vegan pro-AGW brigade is split between those who think their evidence is incontrovertible and those who think that increased green legislation will actually be a growth stimulus.

In other words, not really in touch with reality.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/

Quote
Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.

“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.



Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed “a civil heretic” in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.

“There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.

“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”

I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future.
But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.
« Last Edit: April 6, 2013, 09:57:04 am by Carlos Qiqabal »
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #523 on: April 6, 2013, 10:57:29 am »

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/


The opinion of one man, basically, with ad homs thrown in for good measure to try and discredit anyone he disagrees with. Where is the evidence to substantiate his claims? Why hasn't he done an analysis to show how badly models perform? Interestingly, a recently published paper shows that models have done quite well over short timescales:

Quote
Early climate forecasts are often claimed to have overestimated recent warming. However, their evaluation is challenging for two reasons. First, only a small number of independent forecasts have been made. And second, an independent test of a forecast of the decadal response to external climate forcing requires observations taken over at least one and a half decades from the last observations used to make the forecast, because internally generated climate fluctuations can persist for several years. Here we assess one of the first probabilistic climate forecasts with a full uncertainty assessment that was based on climate models and data up to 1996. Using observations of global temperature over the ensuing 16 years, we find that the original forecast is performing significantly better than a hypothetical alternative based on the assumption that decade-to-decade temperature fluctuations consist of a random walk, that is, a sequence of random fluctuations with no externally driven warming trend.

It is a complex area of science but that doesn't mean findings can simply be rejected because of this complexity. The fact is that models generally perform well when evaluated properly. Also climate science relies on more than models - model findings are corroborated by both observations and paleoclimate studies. We need to base decisions on the best available evidence, not the opinions of people.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #524 on: April 6, 2013, 01:36:10 pm »
The opinion of one man, basically, with ad homs thrown in for good measure to try and discredit anyone he disagrees with.
/snip/



Freeman Dyson was awarded the Max Planck medal in 1969 - here are some other holders of the same award:

1929 Albert Einstein
1930 Niels Bohr
1933 Werner Heisenberg
1937 Erwin Schrödinger
1952 Paul Dirac
1954 Enrico Fermi
1958 Wolfgang Pauli

Obviously to you he's "just one man" who is throwing "ad homs" around. That's probably how he achieved so much in science. Of course if he was on your side of the argument you wouldn't mind that one bit.  Luckily, science doesn't work by consensus - by definition every major breakthrough has been against the prevailing orthodoxy.

Here's a more balanced piece from yesterday's Telegraph:


Quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9974397/Global-warming-time-to-rein-back-on-doom-and-gloom.html

Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?
Climate change scientists acknowledge that the decline in rapid temperature increases is a positive sign


All right, I accept that this Arctic April may seem an incongruous time to address global warming. But there are important, and possibly hopeful, developments in the complex, contentious world of climate science that might finally give us all a sense of spring. For some recent research suggests that climate change might not be as catastrophic as the gloomiest predictions suggest.

The research, moreover, comes at a time when many experts are beginning to despair that warming can be prevented from running out of control. Six weeks ago, for example, Prof Sir Robert Watson – the deeply respected former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said he believed the world had now missed its chance to keep the average rise in global temperature to less than 2C – the level at which dangerous effects are thought inevitable. But if the new research is right, it might be held below this ominous threshold after all, if determined worldwide action is taken.

Prediction, as they say, is tough, especially when it’s about the future – and that’s especially true when it comes to the climate, whose complexity we only partially understand. It is, as we all know, naturally immensely variable. And the effect of human intervention is subject to long timelags: it will be decades, even centuries, before the full consequences of today’s emissions of carbon dioxide become clear.

As a result, scientists and policymakers draw on the past to predict the future. Until now, they have therefore placed much weight on the rapid temperature increases in the Eighties and Nineties. But for at least a decade, these have dramatically slowed, even as carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase.

None of this justifies the frequent claim by climate sceptics that global warming has stopped, and may now reverse. Long lulls have occurred before, only for temperatures to resume their relentless rise. And eight of the nine hottest years on record have still all occurred since 2000. But it does suggest that the rapid recent warming may have been as anomalous as the present pause.

It also raises the possibility that carbon dioxide may be less potent than has been thought in heating the planet. Again, this is not to say, as some sceptics attest, that it is innocent – the science showing that it is a greenhouse gas has been established for more than 150 years and accords with the very laws of physics. But it may be less guilty than once supposed. And this is reinforced by recent findings that emissions of soot, or black carbon – which patient readers may remember I have been banging on about for years – are causing twice as much warming as previously estimated, meaning that the contribution of CO2 must be correspondingly less.

The new research focuses on the arcane but crucial issue of “climate sensitivity”. This is normally expressed as the amount of warming that would eventually result from doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from its level before the Industrial Revolution – something which, on present trends, we will achieve in the next few decades.

The resulting increase has long been put at between 1.5C and 4.5C (the threefold range itself gives some idea of how little is known): the best guess has been 3C, which would be likely to have devastating effects on the climate. But the latest findings – which stretch over several papers from different, well-established scientists – suggest that the rise may be towards the lower end of that big range, possibly less than the 2C danger level.

The researchers themselves are quick to emphasise that their results should not diminish attempts to combat climate change. Their research could be wrong; after all, other equally distinguished scientists have concluded that climate sensitivity is much greater. Even if it is right, their new estimates for temperature rise still range widely, and the upper end still exceeds the danger mark.

Furthermore, the actual effects of temperature rises in the real world can blow away such calculations. Sea ice in the Arctic, for example, has already shrunk to levels not expected to occur for decades – and has done so during the current slowdown in overall global temperature rises.

Besides, a broader problem remains: on present policies, atmospheric CO2 levels will not stop rising when they reach the doubling point, but go on soaring past it – meaning that the world will still reach the danger point, even if more slowly.

So while governments must urgently adopt measures to cut emissions of black carbon – mainly from diesel engines and inefficient Third World cooking stoves – they will also have to do much more to control carbon dioxide.

The new research might just give the world a much-needed breathing space. But it would be foolhardy to breathe out for long.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Millie

  • Athens Airport Queen. Dude, never mind my car, where's my hand sanitiser?!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,101
  • IFWT
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #525 on: April 6, 2013, 01:52:38 pm »


Freeman Dyson was awarded the Max Planck medal in 1969 - here are some other holders of the same award:

1929 Albert Einstein
1930 Niels Bohr
1933 Werner Heisenberg
1937 Erwin Schrödinger
1952 Paul Dirac
1954 Enrico Fermi
1958 Wolfgang Pauli

Obviously to you he's "just one man" who is throwing "ad homs" around. That's probably how he achieved so much in science. Of course if he was on your side of the argument you wouldn't mind that one bit.  Luckily, science doesn't work by consensus - by definition every major breakthrough has been against the prevailing orthodoxy.

Here's a more balanced piece from yesterday's Telegraph:

 

CAn you please not quote from the Telegraph - they may have sacked Kelvin McKenzie but the fact that they hired him in the first place can not, nor should be, ignored
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say nothing at all"  Thumper (1942)

Justice for the 96

I'm a Believer

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #526 on: April 6, 2013, 01:58:44 pm »
CAn you please not quote from the Telegraph - they may have sacked Kelvin McKenzie but the fact that they hired him in the first place can not, nor should be, ignored


Er, why not - they did the right thing to sack him due to public pressure - if they are now permanently on a "ban" list it makes it far less likely that the same thing could happen again (if readers aren't going to come back to them after a sacking then they may as wel lhave stuck with him).

Besides which - I don't see any clamour for BBC sources not being quoted and they pay him appearance fees all the time?
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Millie

  • Athens Airport Queen. Dude, never mind my car, where's my hand sanitiser?!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,101
  • IFWT
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #527 on: April 6, 2013, 02:02:39 pm »

Er, why not - they did the right thing to sack him due to public pressure - if they are now permanently on a "ban" list it makes it far less likely that the same thing could happen again (if readers aren't going to come back to them after a sacking then they may as wel lhave stuck with him).

Besides which - I don't see any clamour for BBC sources not being quoted and they pay him appearance fees all the time?

Sorry - its belongs with the Sun in my eyes, and don't moralise to me about the BBC - I have been involved in numerous campaigns regarding their use of that cretin and I wont stop until they see the light.

Also Mckenzie was an employee of the Torygraph he is not an employee of the BBC
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say nothing at all"  Thumper (1942)

Justice for the 96

I'm a Believer

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #528 on: April 6, 2013, 02:07:36 pm »
Sorry - its belongs with the Sun in my eyes, and don't moralise to me about the BBC - I have been involved in numerous campaigns regarding their use of that cretin and I wont stop until they see the light.

Also Mckenzie was an employee of the Torygraph he is not an employee of the BBC

Good for you.

In my view, if a company pays you for a service you are employed by them. The Telegraph sacked McKenzie - the BBC will continue to pay him.

For that reason, I'll continue to quote the Telegraph for now, thanks. You are free to do as you wish.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Millie

  • Athens Airport Queen. Dude, never mind my car, where's my hand sanitiser?!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,101
  • IFWT
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #529 on: April 6, 2013, 02:13:56 pm »
Good for you.

In my view, if a company pays you for a service you are employed by them. The Telegraph sacked McKenzie - the BBC will continue to pay him.

For that reason, I'll continue to quote the Telegraph for now, thanks. You are free to do as you wish.

Well that's up to you and your conscience - I personally don't wish that newspaper to be given any publicity on here, or anywhere else for that matter.



and I hope the "good for you" comment wasn't meant in a sarcastic manner
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say nothing at all"  Thumper (1942)

Justice for the 96

I'm a Believer

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #530 on: April 6, 2013, 03:29:35 pm »


Freeman Dyson was awarded the Max Planck medal in 1969 - here are some other holders of the same award:

1929 Albert Einstein
1930 Niels Bohr
1933 Werner Heisenberg
1937 Erwin Schrödinger
1952 Paul Dirac
1954 Enrico Fermi
1958 Wolfgang Pauli

Obviously to you he's "just one man" who is throwing "ad homs" around. That's probably how he achieved so much in science. Of course if he was on your side of the argument you wouldn't mind that one bit.  Luckily, science doesn't work by consensus - by definition every major breakthrough has been against the prevailing orthodoxy.

Here's a more balanced piece from yesterday's Telegraph:

 

That he won that medal is irrelevant. If he can't show quantitatively that the models are wrong, we are dealing with his opinion and nothing more. That's not good enough. I'm not sure what makes you think that I would accept the unsubstantiated opinion of one person as proof of anything. My position isn't about ideology or belief, it's about evaluating the whole body of evidence.

That Telegraph article is actually pretty good - it's rare to read articles that acknowledge the uncertainties as prominently as this article does. It's refreshing. But it doesn't quite tell the whole story - this article from the Yale forum on climate change and the media highlights an important feature of using surface temperatures to derive sensitivity (my emphasis):

Quote
However, reasonably comprehensive global temperature records exist only since around 1850, and sensitivity estimates derived from surface temperature records can be overly sensitive to decadal variability. To illustrate that latter point, in the Norwegian study referred to earlier, an estimate of sensitivity using temperature data up to the year 2000 resulted in a relatively high sensitivity of 3.9 C per doubling. Adding in just a single decade of data, from 2000 to 2010, significantly reduces the estimate of sensitivity to 1.9 C.

There’s an important lesson there: The fact that the results are so sensitive to relatively short periods of time should provide a cautionary tale against taking single numbers at face value. If the current decade turns out to be hotter than the first decade of this century, some sensitivity estimates based on surface temperature records may end up being much higher.

So what about climate sensitivity? We are left going back to the IPCC synthesis, that it is “likely” between 2 C and 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations, and “very likely” more than 1.5 C. While different researchers have different best estimates (James Annan, for example, says his best estimate is 2.5 C), uncertainties still mean that estimates cannot be narrowed down to a far narrower and more precise range.

I suspect this is why the Telegraph article insists on stating that we still need to tackle the problem.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #531 on: April 6, 2013, 03:50:42 pm »
/snip/

You're keen we use science to solve the problem - he's one of the greatest scientists of our generation and he's saying the exact same thing I'm saying (I don't know if he reads RAWK):

We don't have the computing technology to model relatively simple problems (e.g. what the weather will be like two weeks from now) let alone moderate ones (e.g. what next week's lottery numbers will be) let alone complex ones (eg the effects of human activity on the climate 50 years from now). That's because we dont fully understand how these types of systems work and small differences can lead to hugely different outcomes.


Maybe he's right, maybe you're right - we will know the answer in 50 years time but the burden of proof is on you.

Why? Because the negative effects of green measures on economic growth means that millions, if not billions of people will suffer if they are undertaken un-necessarily. To you cutting growth by a percent here or there is no big deal - but in the developing world it means everything.

Byut of course it's much easier just to blame everything on huge oil companies suppressing the truth with a grand conspiracy theory.

Everyone would love a computer that could tell what our future is going to be but let's test it on some easy questions first before we we bet the farm on it, no?

« Last Edit: April 6, 2013, 03:52:14 pm by Carlos Qiqabal »
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #532 on: April 6, 2013, 04:20:27 pm »
We must make decisions on the best available evidence CQ, not the hope that things won't be as bad as projected. And since we're dealing with finite resources whose social costs are non-negligible (and unaccounted for), changing the way we do things is a sensible course of action to take.

I've already provided evidence that there doesn't have to be a huge cost to the economy. I've also linked to an IMF report in the Capitalism thread which shows that energy subsidies have a negative impact on the economy in general and removing them means you could start taking measures to curb CO2 and generate positive spillover effects.

There's also plenty of evidence, some of which I have provided, which shows that it will cost more in the long run to do nothing than to take action now. You have stated repeatedly that taking action would harm the so-called developing world but I haven't seen much analysis to support these claims. At the end of the day, there is flexibility in economic systems. Extra revenue can be invested in new projects or used to improve energy efficiency in homes, for example. But certainly benefit-cost analyses must include all the externalities of fossil fuel combustion to get a clear picture of where to go, and they can't simply ignore the costs associated with future climate change.

So the argument isn't based on blaming oil companies - again, I've no idea where you got that from since it's not one I've used to justify taking action. It's based on looking at all the evidence, all the problems, and deciding which course of action to take, if any, in response. Out of interest, can you provide me the link to a report that shows that adaptation costs will be lower than mitigation costs?

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #533 on: April 6, 2013, 04:25:27 pm »
Out of interest, can you provide me the link to a report that shows that adaptation costs will be lower than mitigation costs?

I'm disappearing off to deal with my in-tray but will have a look at some point after that.

We must make decisions on the best available evidence CQ, not the hope that things won't be as bad as projected. And since we're dealing with finite resources whose social costs are non-negligible (and unaccounted for), changing the way we do things is a sensible course of action to take.

Well when the best available evidence from your four-year old is that he wants to be an astronaut I hope you don't mortgage the house so you can buy him a rocket.
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #534 on: April 6, 2013, 05:15:53 pm »

Well when the best available evidence from your four-year old is that he wants to be an astronaut I hope you don't mortgage the house so you can buy him a rocket.


I wasn't aware that astronauts own their own rockets. But then again I guess the main point here is that the words of a four-year old child, or any other human being, aren't as conclusive as established physical principles and evidence in the form of observational data from the physical world.
« Last Edit: April 6, 2013, 05:18:58 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #535 on: April 6, 2013, 05:38:41 pm »
I wasn't aware that astronauts own their own rockets. But then again I guess the main point here is that the words of a four-year old child, or any other human being, aren't as conclusive as established physical principles and evidence in the form of observational data from the physical world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole 'climate science = weather prediction', strawman was thoroughly debunked and dismissed as being both disingenuous and scientifically illiterate. (pgs 9-10, on this very thread).

As for the child + rocket analogy. Good grief - talk about scraping the barrel of debate.

Again, as has been said here before: Bio, you deserve 'The Patience of a Saint' award, once again for your work in this thread. You are a credit to this entire forum - intelligence, arguing the point, and never getting flustered or resorting to insult - you're a star.

Offline Carlos: Very Kickable

  • Pompous Twat. Scourge of Pinko Liberalism. Attitude to Cyan Conservatism is unclear. Lives in a Monochrome world and is baffled by colours.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,802
  • As Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would say...
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #536 on: April 6, 2013, 05:42:52 pm »
Get a (non-subsidised) room.






No, Bio, I wasn't being serious :)
I know you struggle with reading comprehension Carlitos, but do try to pay attention

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Remembers
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,496
  • An Indolent Sybarite
I don't do polite so fuck yoursalf with your stupid accusations...

Right you fuckwit I will show you why you are talking out of your fat arse...

Mutton Geoff (Obviously a real nice guy)

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #538 on: April 8, 2013, 10:57:24 pm »
I shall miss his dulcet tones

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #539 on: April 8, 2013, 11:03:04 pm »
I shall miss his dulcet tones

I shall miss him the way that 14th century Europe misses plague filled buboes

Offline Conocinico

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,661
  • Cameras in your food, dude.
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #540 on: April 8, 2013, 11:55:26 pm »
To be fair to Carlos, it surely takes a certain amount of genius to be wrong in absolutely everything you say. It's got to be almost as difficult as continually being right.
This sentence is not provable

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #541 on: April 11, 2013, 11:38:46 am »
Rep. Joe Barton: Biblical ‘Great Flood’ shows climate change isn’t man made

Republican Texas Rep. Joe Barton on Wednesday dismissed concerns that the Keystone XL pipeline could contribute to climate change, citing the biblical flood myth described in the book of Genesis as evidence that climate change was not man made.

BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski obtained video of Barton speaking to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power in support of the Northern Route Approval Act, a bill that could allow Congress to override President Barack Obama if he refuses to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline extension.

“I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m a proponent and supporter of the Keystone pipeline,” Barton explained.

In contrast to Barton’s past insistence that global warming science is “pretty weak stuff,” the Texas Republican took a different tack in Wednesday’s hearing.

“I don’t deny that the climate is changing,” he said. “I think you can have an honest difference of opinion on what’s causing that change without automatically being either all-in that it’s all because of mankind or it’s all just natural. I think there’s a divergence of evidence.”

“I would point out if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change. And that certainly wasn’t because mankind overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”

source

Yup. The Great Flood. And this guy is Chairman of the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Just let that sink in.

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Remembers
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,496
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #542 on: April 11, 2013, 11:44:28 am »

When I first glimpsed the headline to that I thought it was saying Joey Barton (he of Marseille) who had come out with that nonsense.

Just can't get that thought out of my head now. ;D

I don't do polite so fuck yoursalf with your stupid accusations...

Right you fuckwit I will show you why you are talking out of your fat arse...

Mutton Geoff (Obviously a real nice guy)

Offline ericthered10

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,718
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #543 on: April 11, 2013, 01:08:30 pm »
Joey Barton would be an exemplary legislator in comparison.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #544 on: April 11, 2013, 01:16:06 pm »
Rep. Joe Barton: Biblical ‘Great Flood’ shows climate change isn’t man made


Thing is, where do you start with this? I guess you'd first have to convince yourself that this was meant as a serious argument - not an easy task.

When I first glimpsed the headline to that I thought it was saying Joey Barton (he of Marseille) who had come out with that nonsense.

Just can't get that thought out of my head now. ;D



Now not that want to defend 'our Joey', I know that he did state on Twitter that he wanted to learn about global warming, and someone directed him to Skeptical Science. There is hope yet ;)

Offline pantbash

  • is single and likely to remain that way
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • A Bacchanalian - Still persecuted since BC
Atheism (from Greek, "athos" meaning 'hell', "eios" meaning 'demon' or 'Satan', and "ismos" meaning Liberal, literally "Satan's Liberal Helldemon")

Offline ericthered10

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,718
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #546 on: April 16, 2013, 05:42:33 pm »
Really really important and well-intentioned insight into all the issues surrounding and effecting the environment, climate change, and what the future will hold. Part two of the interview is now up and can be found here:
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/blog/2013/apr/16/jeremy-grantham-food-oil-capitalism

Also, liked his book recommendations. I've read Collapse by Jared Diamond, and picked up Limits to Growth a few weeks ago. Its on deck.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,571
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #547 on: April 16, 2013, 10:23:34 pm »
You're keen we use science to solve the problem - he's one of the greatest scientists of our generation and he's saying the exact same thing I'm saying (I don't know if he reads RAWK):

Basic logical fallacy. Being a 'great scientist' is meaningless - it's the science that matters not the scientist and the history of science is full of examples of 'great scientists' who got things wrong.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #548 on: May 1, 2013, 01:01:44 pm »
So this is what climate change is up against in the US...

Conservatives less likely to buy same lightbulbs if you tell them it will help the environment

Shorter conservatism: Whatever liberals are for, we're against it:

    A study out Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least.

    The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

Got that? With all other factors being equal, conservatives were less likely to buy the exact same lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. They didn't have any more aversion to buying energy-saving lightbulbs than anyone else, unless the package pointed out that this particular lightbulb was slightly less earth-screwing than the other one. Tell them that, and they were more likely to go for the other one.

The researchers believe the result to be indicative of the heavy politicization of climate issues. Put more simply, it means that conservatives are willing to base even the most minor of decisions in large part on whether they think the result will piss imaginary liberals off; we've just re-discovered the guiding philosophy of the entire post-Reagan conservative movement. (It also raises an interesting question that, as far as I can discern, was left untested: If you advertised one bulb specifically as being bad for the environment, would conservatives be more likely to buy it? There may be an untapped market for a bulb that promises "this lightbulb personally clubs baby seals" or "this bulb will help give asthma to some poor midwestern kid living near a power plant.")

The real-world implications of this are unclear, but at the least we can surmise that it won't be long before Sen. Inhofe or some other hard-right conservative lawmaker sees this research and responds with (1) an investigation of some sort into the National Acadamy of Sciences and (2) the introduction of a bill to ban all future research that might make conservatives look petty or stupid. That'll be the end of geology, biology and economic theory, to name only a few, but at least America will still have slightly-more-environment-screwing lightbulbs.

source

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #549 on: May 2, 2013, 12:30:29 pm »
Wait, there's more!

Belief in biblical end-times stifling climate change action in U.S.: study

The United States has failed to take action to mitigate climate change thanks in part to the large number of religious Americans who believe the world has a set expiration date.

Research by David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado uncovered that belief in the biblical end-times was a motivating factor behind resistance to curbing climate change.

“The fact that such an overwhelming percentage of Republican citizens profess a belief in the Second Coming (76 percent in 2006, according to our sample) suggests that governmental attempts to curb greenhouse emissions would encounter stiff resistance even if every Democrat in the country wanted to curb them,” Barker and Bearce wrote in their study, which will be published in the June issue of Political Science Quarterly.

The study, based on data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, uncovered that belief in the “Second Coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of strongly supporting government action on climate change by 12 percent when controlling for a number of demographic and cultural factors. When the effects of party affiliation, political ideology, and media distrust were removed from the analysis, the belief in the “Second Coming” increased this effect by almost 20 percent.

t stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised,” Barker and Bearce explained.

That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.

Though the two researchers cautioned their study was not intended to predict future policy outcomes, they said their study suggested it was unlikely the United States would take action on climate change while so many Americans, particularly Republicans, believed in the coming end-times.

“That is, because of institutions such as the Electoral College, the winner-take-all representation mechanism, and the Senate filibuster, as well as the geographic distribution of partisanship to modern partisan polarization, minority interests often successfully block majority preferences,” Barker and Bearce wrote. “Thus, even if the median voter supports policies designed to slow global warming, legislation to effect such change could find itself dead on arrival if the median Republican voter strongly resists public policy environmentalism at least in part because of end-times beliefs.”

source
« Last Edit: May 2, 2013, 12:32:05 pm by corkboy »

Offline the 92A

  • Alberto Incontidor. Peneus. Phantom Thread Locker. Mr Bus. But there'll be another one along soon enough. Almost as bad as Jim...
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,032
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #550 on: May 6, 2013, 07:10:06 pm »
Maurice Strong, Bert Bolin and Al Gore should be tried for crimes against humanity. I really cannot believe that so-called educated people still give this faux science any credence.
Moronic and provocative in two sentences, good even for RAWK. If you can't argue your point stay out of the thread.
Still Dreaming of a Harry Quinn

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #551 on: May 7, 2013, 01:11:10 am »
Some 'faux science'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22408341

Arctic Ocean 'acidifying rapidly'

The Arctic seas are being made rapidly more acidic by carbon-dioxide emissions, according to a new report.

Scientists from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) monitored widespread changes in ocean chemistry in the region.

They say even if CO2 emissions stopped now, it would take tens of thousands of years for Arctic Ocean chemistry to revert to pre-industrial levels.

Many creatures, including commercially valuable fish, could be affected.

They forecast major changes in the marine ecosystem, but say there is huge uncertainty over what those changes will be.

It is well known that CO2 warms the planet, but less well-known that it also makes the alkaline seas more acidic when it is absorbed from the air.

Quote
    The Arctic region contains a vast ice-covered ocean roughly centred on the Earth's geographic North Pole
    The Sun doesn't rise at all on the shortest day of the year within the Arctic Circle
    Humans have inhabited the Arctic region for thousands of years, and the current population is four million
    Geologists estimate the Arctic may hold up to 25% of the world's remaining oil and natural gas


Absorption is particularly fast in cold water so the Arctic is especially susceptible, and the recent decreases in summer sea ice have exposed more sea surface to atmospheric CO2.

The Arctic's vulnerability is exacerbated by increasing flows of freshwater from rivers and melting land ice, as freshwater is less effective at chemically neutralising the acidifying effects of CO2.

The researchers say the Nordic Seas are acidifying over a wide range of depths - most quickly in surface waters and more slowly in deep waters.

The report’s chairman, Richard Bellerby from the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, told BBC News that they had mapped a mosaic of different levels of pH across the region, with the scale of change largely determined by the local intake of freshwater.

“Large rivers flow into the Arctic, which has an enormous catchment for its size,” he said.

“There’s slow mixing so in effect we get a sort of freshwater lens on the top of the sea in some places, and freshwater lowers the concentration of ions that buffers pH change. The sea ice has been a lid on the Arctic, so the loss of ice is allowing fast uptake of CO2.”

This is being made worse, he said, by organic carbon running off the land – a secondary effect of regional warming.

“Continued rapid change is a certainty,” he said.

“We have already passed critical thresholds. Even if we stop emissions now, acidification will last tens of thousands of years. It is a very big experiment.”

The research team monitored decreases in seawater pH of about 0.02 per decade since the late 1960s in the Iceland and Barents seas.

Chemical effects related to acidification have also been encountered in surface waters of the Bering Strait and the Canada Basin of the central Arctic Ocean.

Scientists estimate that the average acidity of surface ocean waters worldwide is now about 30% higher than before the Industrial Revolution.

The researchers say there is likely to be major change to the Arctic marine ecosystem as a result. Some key prey species like sea butterflies may be harmed. Other species may thrive. Adult fish look likely to be fairly resilient but the development of fish eggs might be harmed. It is too soon to tell.

Offline Thé_Ḓárk_P̌áşşéngér

  • RAWK Revolutionary.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,273
  • Guns don't kill people, chimps do!
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #552 on: May 8, 2013, 10:53:46 pm »
Moronic and provocative in two sentences , good even for RAWK. If you can't argue your point stay out of the thread.

It always amazes me how the level of moderating on RAWK seems to drop a notch whenever you're involved; and I'll assume the two sentences you were referring to were your laughable admonishment.
“Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.”

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #553 on: May 9, 2013, 01:01:14 am »
It always amazes me how the level of moderating on RAWK seems to drop a notch whenever you're involved; and I'll assume the two sentences you were referring to were your laughable admonishment.

Why are you here? This is a discussion thread. Cheep, vapid and unsubstantiated pronouncements about the veracity/falsehood of science do not a discussion make.

Now you're making it personal, because someone called you out for it? Why? There are venues for questioning moderation and this ain't it.

So what are you talking about - please explain when you make statements like 'such and such', should be on trial for crimes against humanity: What have they done that warrants prosecution for crimes normally attributable to, I don't know, genocidal maniacs? Perpetrators of particularly brutal mass murder?

I am going to call you out: Climate Change Deniers fall into one of a few categories (with some margin for error).

Male. Middle age, or older.

And, one of: True Believers in laissez faire, free market capitalism/Libertarians. Or Conspiracy Theorists.

I think you are one of the latter, judging by my limited exploration of your post history.

So speak up and provide some kind of argument. if you're not just talking bollocks - I would be delighted to debate with you instead of dropping down to the level you have so far demonstrated  :wave

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #554 on: May 9, 2013, 02:41:38 pm »
Rep. Joe Barton: Biblical ‘Great Flood’ shows climate change isn’t man made

Meanwhile, a Democrat politician has a different take...

Sheldon Whitehouse: God Won't Save Us From Climate Catastrophe

WASHINGTON -- God will not save us, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) declared in a Senate floor speech on climate change Wednesday that sounded more like a sermon than a political appeal.

Whitehouse has made it his personal mission for more than a year to highlight the catastrophic consequences of climate change every week. His zeal became downright evangelical Wednesday evening, apparently inspired by hearing a fellow senator assert that God won't let people ruin the planet.

In a powerful 17-minute speech, Whitehouse argued that such sentiments amounted to "magical thinking" and smug arrogance that do not gibe with the Bible, let alone reason.

"If we believe in an all-powerful God, then we must then believe that God gave us this earth, and we must in turn believe that God gave us its laws of gravity, of chemistry, of physics," Whitehouse said.

"We must also believe that God gave us our human powers of intellect and reason. He gives us these powers so that we his children can learn and understand earth's natural laws," Whitehouse said.

What intellect tells people is that they are polluting the planet and causing it to warm with foreseeable, catastrophic consequences, Whitehouse contended. He said it was senseless to ignore what the God of knowledge has enabled people to learn.

"We learn these natural laws, and we apply them to build and create, and we prosper," Whitehouse said. "So why then, when we ignore his plain, natural laws, when we ignore the obvious conclusions to be drawn by our God-given intellect and reason, why then would God, the tidy-up God, drop in and spare us?"

source

Offline ericthered10

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,718
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #555 on: May 9, 2013, 05:17:34 pm »
Fowler help us.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,492
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #556 on: May 9, 2013, 06:53:29 pm »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/08/carbon-dioxide-levels-are-at-their-highest-point-in-at-least-800000-years/

I've been doing a bit of research into this. What is worrying is that the threshold of 450 ppm, set by the international community so that warming doesn't exceed 2ºC, has probably already been reached if you take into account other greenhouse gases (methane, etc.). Really we should be looking at CO2eq, which stands for CO2 equivalent, rather than just CO2 levels. What we are doing is pure folly as we've no way of reversing rising CO2 levels.

Offline the 92A

  • Alberto Incontidor. Peneus. Phantom Thread Locker. Mr Bus. But there'll be another one along soon enough. Almost as bad as Jim...
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,032
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #557 on: May 9, 2013, 10:48:23 pm »
It always amazes me how the level of moderating on RAWK seems to drop a notch whenever you're involved; and I'll assume the two sentences you were referring to were your laughable admonishment.


All you need to know is this 'shit' mod is telling you to keep out the thread unless you put some constructive arguments up to back up your views. If you can't do that I'll have to ban you. Your call.
Still Dreaming of a Harry Quinn

Offline Pheel

  • Look into my eyes...
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,633
  • Jerzy............Legend
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #558 on: May 11, 2013, 02:33:05 am »
Probably been discussed before but for me the biggest shift is that the thread is called Climate change. We where told of "global warming"  oops a few years of "baltic winters" and hey ho,,, Climate change....   Climate changes.... We have had Ice ages in measurable history,, Of course then we didnt have an advanced political system.   You want to get Humanity to impact the Vastness of the planet?   We banned CFC;s ( remember them)? in the 80's.....
Better today than yesterday...........
           even better tomorrow.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss
« Reply #559 on: May 11, 2013, 03:12:22 am »
Probably been discussed before but for me the biggest shift is that the thread is called Climate change. We where told of "global warming"  oops a few years of "baltic winters" and hey ho,,, Climate change....   Climate changes.... We have had Ice ages in measurable history,, Of course then we didnt have an advanced political system.   You want to get Humanity to impact the Vastness of the planet?   We banned CFC;s ( remember them)? in the 80's.....

OP - Climate change is here — and worse than we thought


I don't understand what you have written - at least, I haven't parsed out what it is you meant to say.