Alsadius wrote:The data is falling out of the bottom end of their confidence intervals,
Source? I tried to google, but all I found was a host of articles built around this one image
, which doesn't reference the models themselves.
keithl wrote:If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate. Get off your butt, think and build and sell new tools that work. If all you can think of is pointing guns at people (=laws), shut up and get out of the way.
The very point of laws as a concept is to prevent people from "getting in the way". The current laws are not set up in a way to prevent tragedy of the commons, and we are apparently failing to prevent it on our own.
jpk wrote:As for "geo-engineering" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales. We're fucked: stare that in the face for a while until the urge to spout stupid happy-talk goes away.
As for "penicillin" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales. As for "bows and arrows to hunt with" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales. As for "automation" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales.
'Good stories' are for fairy tales. 'Karmic balance' is for fairy tales. The trope of "wrong genre savvy"
is for fairy tales. The universe is not set up in a way to reward judiciousness. Only the results matter, and climate change isn't fast enough at switching from "damaging" to "irreversible" (or even "catastrophic") that we can't find a solution by throwing world war levels of cash at the problem to solve it within 5 to 10 years, even at current levels of technology.
Protip: We are currently in an ice age.
Historical cyclical temperature change (per Antarctic core samples, with modern sensors filling in at the end):
These claims are contradictory.
CigarDoug wrote:I'll say it again, slowly: There hasn't been any global warming since 1997.
Damned by the obvious omission: there has not been a single year as hot as this one since temperatures have been recorded, before 1997.
Blackima wrote:So a future with massive global warming doesn't look too bad!
A billion people displaced in Asian coastal regions. Agriculture yields decrease as weather patterns change unexpectedly. Invasion, starvation, riots, wars, a hundred nuclear bombs fired by Indian and Pakistani radicals driven to desperation, with the targets probably including Europe and China. Between 5% and 50% of the world's population dead. "Not too bad" my ass.
synp wrote:The scientist would not be shunned, or be blacklisted from receiving further grants. Such is not the case for climate change.
Source? Also, please consider that the world is not the US, or even the anglosphere, and climate change is not a controversial topic everywhere.
ctdonath wrote:There's a valid concern about professional bias: if you participate in X as a career, you probably have incentive to support it. Considering that there's money in proving "humans are to blame for global climate change" (nee "warming", nee "cooling", as fads change) but not in the alternatives, and dissenters from that view are labeled "heretics", little surprise there's lots of peer-reviewed back-patting and little approved dissent.
Are you kidding me? Conservatives and polluting companies would declare you a new folk hero and make you a millionaire if you were to publish evidence against anthropogenic climate change. Science in general is set up in such a way that deviating from the norm - with good evidence - gives
you prestige and money. Besides, it isn't string theory or psychology: "back patting" can't be done in climate change without fudging the numbers, which would therefore have to happen in almost every case for there not to be a clear pattern differentiating between legitimate research and fraud. So it would have to be a conspiracy involving 90%+ of scholars.
JPhi1618 wrote:I gotta say that I don't follow all of the Global Warming news...
The main thing that no one has convinced me of is a point this comic clearly illustrates. So we had all that ice and cold 20,000 years ago, right? And we didn't have coal-fired power plants or cars or smog or anything? And somehow the Earth warmed up to where it is now right? So there must be some natural process for cooling and warming the Earth, and that's been happening for (b/m)illions(?) of years? But, now humans think that they have the power to warm and cool the Earth and that we're somehow responsible for the current state of affairs?
Let's be clear - I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't happening (I just don't have the data), I'm asking that if it is happening, and its happened before, what makes us so sure that humans are the most responsible for the current trend rather that some natural phenomenon? And please, don't slam me as some "denier" - I really would like some links or answers to have a better understanding of why we think human activity is doing this.
Also, bonus question - take a huge forest fire that consumes 1M acres of trees and grass. How do those "emissions" compare to industrial emissions output? Is that giant fire equal to a month of the US emissions? 2 months? 12? Or are they apples and oranges? What about a volcano? Of course, my point is that tons of carbon is released by natural processes, so how does that really compare with human output?
We're significantly increasing the atmospheric CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere through permanent deforestation, cattle farts, natural gas, coal and oil combustion, and other chemical waste. These gases have that name because they have an absorption spectrum different from standard atmospheric gases, which means that if they're present in larger quantities, more sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere than usual, which makes the atmosphere warmer. The energy is eventually emitted back out as infrared heat radiation, but the temperature of the atmosphere is higher because the energy is retained for a while longer. How much warmer is not clear a priori, because of possible secondary effects like sea CO2 absorption, changing percentage of cloud cover, changing albedo from local changes in climate (melting ice, deforestation, desert expansion), etc.. Meanwhile, concurrently, global temperatures have risen at a rate which pretty decently correlates with the rate of increased greenhouse gases from industrialisation. Also, ice samples from Antarctica have demonstrated a similar correlation for other temperature changes (but AFAIK not with enough resolution to determine cause and effect).
AFAIK, that is basically all there is, with more precise stuff differing in kind, rather than in any fundamental principle. Naively, we should be expected to heat the planet by releasing greenhouse gases, but climate is weird. When we look back at the past over a long period, there is a good correlation, but we can't tell which way around. When we look at the past hundred years, we see temperature following changes in greenhouse gases reasonably well, but there is still little data and it could always be an accidental correlation. Combine the three, and Occam's razor points at anthropogenic climate change (with enough certainty to convince 97% of climate scientists, as well as convince the entire world except China and the United States to voluntarily limit their economic growth in an attempt to stop it.).
A forest fire shouldn't affect emissions significantly, since the forest will regrow within a few decades, absorbing CO2 all the while. Burning down forests and replacing them with cities or farmland is a larger concern.
CocoaNutCakery wrote:[stuff about national parks and poorly placed measuring stations]
By picking national park data, you are limiting your results to the United States. If you take a look at the US temperature data
, you find the same slight decrease, despite including your allegation that the data is acquired poorly. Therefore, your allegation of bad data does not explain the reported temperature increase worldwide, and is therefore probably false.