1379: "4.5 Degrees"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:45 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
synp wrote:
Crissa wrote:Interesting that someone would compare an Earth with an atmosphere and climate that no human could survive 'normal'.


What atmosphere and climate is that?


How about this post viewtopic.php?f=7&t=109136#p3602435 and perhaps the 'Cretaceous' like from the comic? It's kinda hard to have a discussion when the posts one responded to seem to no longer be here.

There were days last year where several major cities were barely inhabitable. This is only going to get worse - and our method for cooling buildings can't cope with it. Raise the average climate by a couple degrees, and major cities will becomes uninhabitable. That ought to be scary stuff.

-Crissa


How about this post?

And what major city, pray tell, are you claiming was "barely inhabitable"? Edit: The hottest Dubai ever got last year was 48 C, which was actually less than its highest at 49 C (1978, in case you're wondering). Hot as that might seem to someone living in the Northeast or Europe or wherever you are, that's not near uninhabitable.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:49 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:while you fail to respond to two thirds of my post.

Well, yeah, I got kinda distracted when you started acting like a stalker.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:50 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:About that absorption and radiation...

Your link both says the greenhouse effect is necessary to Earth-like temperatures and that it's impossible at the same time. Ugh.

None of the charts in it support its conclusion, they're basically irrelevant to the topic of greenhouse effect - they're part of the method, but not really relevant to the outcome. Why? Because input radiate energy isn't a flat line. Neither is reflected. Neither is the context of what other gasses and reflective surfaces is. Nor does it at all touch upon the greater, which is the pure ability of said gas to absorb and refuse to relinquish, a band of radiant energy we call 'heat'. Or the basic measurements of the gasses as they act.

Climate deniers are just weird. They demand, basically, that all science up to now - including the presumption that thermometers work - to be bunk. Ugh.

-Crissa

CocoaNutCakery wrote:How about this post?


PS: Your inability to understand linear events is in no way helping your argument. A post on the first page cannot reply to a post on the second page, if the posts are in time order.
Last edited by Crissa on Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:57 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Edit: The hottest Dubai ever got last year was 48 C, which was actually less than its highest at 49 C (1978, in case you're wondering). Hot as that might seem to someone living in the Northeast or Europe or wherever you are, that's not near uninhabitable.


Ahh, yes, the inability to think that the atmosphere might have any conditions other than just temperature which might make it uninhabitable. In 1978, Dubai wasn't a major city. It also was a huge example of your heat-island effect. Now, maybe you could think of some major cities in an environment which has a high humidity, in a range that temperature might be lethal.

PS: Several cities hit 49C last year. At least one went over 50C Gosh! How could you have missed that?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:while you fail to respond to two thirds of my post.

Well, yeah, I got kinda distracted when you started acting like a stalker.
Failing to once again respond to the discussion, again, implicates you as not wanting to participate in it. If you think criticizing your dishonest and ineffective debate tactics marks me a stalker, I dare say we have a fairly large disconnect and as I said in my very first post to you, dialog will probably not be fruitful.

It's also a little bemusing, given that Jackpot was the one who looked into your background.

EDIT: CocoaNut, your link is also referencing American Thinker as part of it's refutation of the Green House Effect, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH that it makes an analogous claim to 'Water is good, so, lots of water is better!'. Please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, stop linking drivel.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Moose Anus
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Moose Anus » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:24 pm UTC

I've read this whole thread and I've got to say I'm getting pretty tired of the people complaining about politicization and general grumpiness.
Lemonade? ...Aww, ok.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:25 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:About that absorption and radiation...

Your link both says the greenhouse effect is necessary to Earth-like temperatures <i>and that it's impossible</i> at the same time. Ugh.

None of the charts in it support its conclusion, they're basically irrelevant to the topic of greenhouse effect - they're part of the method, but not really relevant to the outcome. Why? Because input radiate energy isn't a flat line. Neither is reflected. Neither is the context of what other gasses and reflective surfaces is. Nor does it at all touch upon the greater, which is the pure ability of said gas to absorb and refuse to relinquish, a band of radiant energy we call 'heat'. Or the basic measurements of the gasses as they act.


Please, for the love of all that's good in this world, learn anything at all about what the greenhouse effect means before you come into a discussion and claim something like this. Heck, that link even provides a quote explaining it! What they're saying is that increasing the concentration of CO2 would not increase its effects as a greenhouse gas (or at least not by much, anyway). This is backed by the charts. The charts show that CO2 is already operating at near 100% efficiency as a greenhouse gas and you can't increase the effectiveness of a greenhouse gas past 100% efficiency.

Crissa wrote:Ahh, yes, the inability to think that the atmosphere might have any conditions other than just temperature which might make it uninhabitable. In 1978, Dubai wasn't a major city. It also was a huge example of your heat-island effect. Now, maybe you could think of some major cities in an environment which has a high humidity, in a range that temperature might be lethal.

PS: Several cities hit 49C last year. At least one went over 50C Gosh! How could you have missed that?


1. You were referring specifically to temperature.
2. If you'd like to point to temperature + humidity combinations, feel free.

Izawwlgood wrote:CocoaNut, your link is also referencing American Thinker as part of it's refutation of the Green House Effect, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH that it makes an analogous claim to 'Water is good, so, lots of water is better!'.


How in the world you came to this conclusion is beyond me. Please quote where this happened.

Moose Anus wrote:I've read this whole thread and I've got to say I'm getting pretty tired of the people complaining about politicization and general grumpiness.


Wanna talk about alternative energy sources or collection methods? I really like fusion, geothermal, and wireless energy transfer. What are your favorites?

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:30 pm UTC

cwDeici wrote:Ugh guys, everyone reasonable here (except Randall it seems) agree AGW is a major problem, and that there may be good solutions to it (does anyone who knows about Aerosol Sulphates think it can be used to block the temperature rise without any major disturbances outside a change to the rainfall pattern increasing drought in sensitive areas? (learnt about that from the gravely inaccurate but interesting FotW game). Can we get back the reasonable discussion now and just ignore the crazy doomsayers who don't believe in geo-engineering (even though that's what AGW unintentionally is) and deniers? This reminds me of the time I tried to compare male/female female/male upper body strength and social skills on gitp (an rpg forum) and then some mean-spirited people accused me of being a horrible person who thought women were aliens (partly because I didn't bother to duplicate everything like above, even though I pointed that (and a LOT of other things out in a disclaimer (sadly I forgot to include having been rightfully called a misandrist in the past for pointing out men were responsible for the most violence and political oppression, but I doubt that would've stopped anything since the social skill differences weren't as wide as the physical differences in a combat-oriented game for obvious reasons such as childbirth taking up a lot of physical resources)).
This was a good read until about a page ago.

I don't think discrimination can be inferred simply from pointing out facts (especially when properly sourced). I mean, saying "on average men commit more violent crimes" with a link to a study supporting this is like saying "women tend to have less physical strength" with a proper study supporting this claim. It becomes a problem when conclusions follow from these statements though. Of course, when it's completely out of context or you have a strong bias as to which facts to present (and you present too many of them) it would also be problematic as it would become suggestive. I guess I just disagree with your "rightfully" part unless the context was wrong.

Now I'm wondering: is it possible to be a misandrist and misogynist at the same time? I guess that would be supporting the "different but equal" nonsense, but could one do it on a very deep emotional level?

User avatar
Moose Anus
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Moose Anus » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:30 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:
Moose Anus wrote:I've read this whole thread and I've got to say I'm getting pretty tired of the people complaining about politicization and general grumpiness.


Wanna talk about alternative energy sources or collection methods?
Nope, I just like complaining.
Lemonade? ...Aww, ok.

User avatar
zjxs
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:04 am UTC
Location: The Cloud

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby zjxs » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:32 pm UTC

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Alberto Brandolini

Climate change denial is the creationism of the 2010s, a veritable gish-gallop. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop There's a lot of science out there folks. I'm out, until someone cleans the stables.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:38 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Please, for the love of all that's good in this world, learn anything at all...

Yes, please do. Your linked article is ridiculous. Besides, like I said, all of science for the last 200 years would have to be wrong for that link's assertion to be true.
CocoaNutCakery wrote:1. You were referring specifically to temperature.
2. If you'd like to point to temperature + humidity combinations, feel free.

So you were wrong about the high temperature and you don't seem to care that 'habitable' includes more than one variable. I only mentioned 'habitable' driven by temperature - gosh, what else is driven by temperature? Might it be... Humidity? Yes, I knew you were dishonest, but at least you admit it now.

-Crissa

canorous1
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:19 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby canorous1 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:44 pm UTC

There had been no visible warming over the last 18 years, why do we think the next 86 will be any different?

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:45 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:About that absorption and radiation...

That page gives two very specious arguments, which I've seen brought up on more than one occasion so I thought it might be worth pointing out.

First, it argues that for increased temperature the upgoing radiation band would shift to the left. But in truth that's only because of more radiation would be emitted at those higher wavelengths, not because any less radiation is emitted at lower ones. So it's not like carbon dioxide would actually end up absorbing less energy than it did before, the way the author describes. That's misunderstanding Wien's law.

Second, changing the level of gas is only going to affect frequencies that are partially transmitted. The author acts as if there are no such frequencies, describing things as if there were a sharp cut-off between where the upgoing thermal radiation is transmitted and where it is not. In truth you can see the right upgoing thermal radiation band falls off specifically matching increasing absorption by carbon dioxide. Now it's true there's only a small percentage of energy where there is partial transmission, but that's not negligible if we're only talking about a small percentage change in temperatures. 4.5 K out of 280 K would only be 1.6%, so the article is essentially rounding out the change to begin with.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:57 pm UTC

Ray Kremer wrote:During the ice age, all areas of the Earth covered in glacier had to have a year-round temperature no higher than 0°C. So if the 20th century norm was 4.5° above that, it must have been about 40°F year-round in all those areas. Maybe we can all check with our parents and grandparents, I don't think that was the case.

That is so not how that works. The glacier remains at or below freezing, but that does not mean the air above it is not. Anyone who goes skiing should know this... You totally can have a 70F day atop a mountain but the ground will remain snow-covered because its mass is bigger than the air, and the heat transfer over a day is insufficient to melt it all. Also, snow is very reflective, and doesn't absorb sunlight well at all... So the air above it is easily much warmer than freezing before the snow and ice melts all away.

What matter is the average temperature. For instance, there's a cave filled with ice in New Mexico. But the weather there is currently 80F. Why is the ice still there? Well, the volcanic rock is very thermally insulating, so the sun's rays never reach the ice, and the rock around it doesn't really heat up. So while cold water from winter rain will flow down there and freeze, it never gets enough thermal mass from the air to thaw. (Ironically, a few miles from there is another volcanic cave which is warmer at the bottom than the outside - because it's closer to where the molten rock was most recently.)

Climate is the averages, while weather is what it is today. And the average is what changes what trees grow, and whether a glacier will shrink or grow in a given location.

-Crissa

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:12 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Please, for the love of all that's good in this world, learn anything at all...

Yes, please do. Your linked article is ridiculous.


That's your counter-proof, apparently. "This is true because I say it is." Please point to anything in there that is actually ridiculous. Provide any counter-evidence to the claims made in that article. Anything.

Crissa wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:1. You were referring specifically to temperature.
2. If you'd like to point to temperature + humidity combinations, feel free.

So you were wrong about the high temperature and you don't seem to care that 'habitable' includes more than one variable. I only mentioned 'habitable' driven by temperature - gosh, what else is driven by temperature? Might it be... Humidity? Yes, I knew you were dishonest, but at least you admit it now.

-Crissa


Once again, any evidence of what you're saying? No? Not a single city deemed "borderline inhabitable" or anything of that sort?

(Edit: Oh, and by the way, this was such an absurd thing that I needed to mention: Humidity often regulates temperatures. This is one of the reasons why deserts have higher temperature swings, both in the small-scale and in the large-scale, than, say, rain forests (not necessarily just of the tropical variety).)

chenille wrote:The author acts as if there are no such frequencies, as if there were a sharp cut-off between where the upgoing thermal radiation is transmitted and where it is not. In truth you can see the right upgoing thermal radiation band falls off specifically matching increasing absorption by carbon dioxide. Now it's true there's only a small percentage where there is partial transmission. But then we're only talking about a small percentage change in temperatures - 4.5 K out of 280 K would only be 1% - so it's not at all negligible on the scale we're talking about.


Temperature and percentage don't work very well. Even using K, at 100 K to 150 K, that's a 50% increase, but water is still frozen. Don't bring percentages into temperature.

Now, that said, there are also issues with your claim here. It's a little difficult to ascertain exactly what you're trying to say here. For example, there are wavelengths that CO2 absorbs pretty poorly. These are the wavelengths that aren't covered by other greenhouse gases. The problem is the claim of 1% increase in the effects of CO2. This is based on the concept that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. In fact, it isn't even close to the majority greenhouse gas in terms of effect vs. concentration increase (based on its current concentration). In other words, its niches as a greenhouse gas are already filled and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction is the effect that it would have, which is dwarfed by so many other causes of climate changes on Earth.

Edit: By the way, this is why I said "nearly 100%."
Last edited by CocoaNutCakery on Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:27 pm UTC

And now I'm tired and the discussion seems have wound down. Chenille, I would like to thank you for being one of the few people that replied to me that actually produced a rather good and intriguing argument. While I don't think that increasing CO2 levels have as much of an effect as you think they would, I will admit that this is not based on actual data, but rather eyeballing and estimations.

Unfortunately, you came at a bad time. I spend far too much time on internet arguments and, since I'm going to be away for a while, I figure now's the best time to stop before I spend the entire day on this.

For those of you that want to argue against the points I made, feel free. I think it's kind of a jerk move to say, "Oh, here are my points. Now good-bye and if you try to argue against them, you're a jackass." I've had a lot of people pull that on me, especially of the "Let's be friends after I had the last word" variety. Honestly, I think that, if you have something to say on the matter, such as actual counter-evidence to the issue, you should say it. That's my last word on the matter: If you have some good counter-evidence (such as what Chanille provided), you can and should have the last word, since I am abandoning the discussion.

(Edit: Oh, and because people have been misrepresenting my viewpoint: I am all for alternative energy sources, particularly solar and fusion (which are currently impractical, the former only barely so based on economic issues, but the coming decades seem promising). I just have different reasons for wanting them than doomsayers. I also don't count myself as a global warming denier, as it seems to me that average temperature is increasing. I just really hate it when people overstate a problem or when bad science is allowed to go unchallenged.)

Have at it, and remember:

Image

gimmespamnow
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gimmespamnow » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:54 pm UTC

Part of the reasons that people want to do something about global warming sooner rather than later is because it will take a while to do something, we need to be working on solutions now. Some people complain about how "justified" Al Gore is, (he isn't, I see more justified people on the news every day,) but they are also missing the fact that immediate action is the only possible way to solve this.

Say we decided that we all should switch to hydrogen fuel celled cars. The model year 2016 cars are already mostly designed, so it won't be those cars, but maybe 2017. Great, right? No, when you add in the fact that the average (median,) car on the road in the US is 11 years old, that means it will still be 2028 before we have reduced automobile pollution by half*. That is kind of a long time from now, so if the science is suddenly "settled" then (it is settled now, and I suspect that some of the denialists will continue to hold out until they die,) and then they agreed that we had a problem, we'd still be a long way from solving it...

Buildings are worse than cars. While the average car may be 11 years old, that is a relatively new as buildings go. Think about it: cars built in the 70s are considered "classics" and turn heads, but there is no shortage of buildings built before the oil shocks in the 70s, and many have no insulation. You can build houses efficiently enough that they don't need a heater at all, (although with global warming, maybe we should be more worried about air conditioning,) but that is generally regarded as a "gimmick" at the moment, it doesn't even approach "niche market" status in the US. If you build a house to the minimum of current building codes in the US today, you'll feel a breeze inside the house when the wind blows outside. (For instance, the building code says that the gaps around the outlets can't be any bigger than 1/4 inch, yet a 1/4 inch gap lets in a lot of air.)

*Hydrogen is an energy carrier not an energy source, and it is a pretty bad carrier with current technology, so this wouldn't be a realistic idea. Lead acid batteries would be much better, and much more realistic to switch to quickly. But you have consider that that energy has to come from somewhere, somewhere that probably isn't entirely carbon neutral either, so it won't cut emissions by half anyways, (at least, not right away.)

gimmespamnow
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gimmespamnow » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:58 pm UTC

Interesting... When you type the word "s-h-r-i-l-l", it apparently comes out "justified".

(Not complaining, I like my comment better that way anyways. :-)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:58 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:How in the world you came to this conclusion is beyond me. Please quote where this happened.

From your article, where they say 'from the American Thinker';
“The Greenhouse Effect is real and necessary for life on Earth. Without it, our world would be a frozen ball that would not be hospitable for life as we know it. The harmful stuff (x-rays and gamma rays) is filtered out, but the light in the visible spectrum enters, and that light energy warms our Earth. The land and sea then respond to that warming energy by emitting light in the spectrum of the infrared (IR), and that energy takes the form of small packets of energy called photons. When those IR photons reach the atmosphere, some of them get absorbed by certain molecules, and that absorbed energy is transferred into the elements of the molecules. That energy causes the molecules to vibrate and heat the atmosphere, and finally, the atmosphere transfers some of that energy back to the Earth’s surface. Again, this is necessary, because if we didn’t have this blocking of IR wavelengths, our average temperatures on Earth would be about 32 degrees Celsius cooler (-18° C instead of the current 14° C). One of the greenhouse gases (GHG) that reflects these IR wavelengths is CO2, but there are others, such as water vapor, ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and CFCs.”

Yes, the green house gas effect IS neccesary for life on Earth, because without it, Earth with totally freeze! Wretchedly bad laymans explanation aside, it posits that CO2's greenhouse gas-ability is 'at a maximum', which is... I mean, it's not even handwavy, it's just utterly pulled from thin air. Evidently, the American Thinker has not heard of Venus. Or an actual factual greenhouse. All this graph is poorly showing (because there is no scale nor units for the gases it's trying to show... absorbtion? for). It's resting on this notion that more CO2 won't cause more warming, because it... can't? but it's not providing any data to support that.

Honestly, there are a ton of things wrong with this article. It's also using a lot of extremely obnoxious language to attempt to discredit actual factual science; for example, calling AGW a meme and a cult.

Forserious, linking anything that considers American Thinker a useful source is like citing a WBC member on the national gay marriage discussion. If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation about climate change, learn to find credible sources of information.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:05 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Temperature and percentage don't work very well. Even using K, at 100 K to 150 K, that's a 50% increase, but water is still frozen. Don't bring percentages into temperature.

They don't work well for everything, but for radiation they work well enough to give an idea of the scale we're considering. Blackbody radiation varies with E = σAT4, so a 1-2% increase in temperature corresponds to about 4-8% increase in emitted radiation. That determines what sort of amounts you can ignore.

Saying carbon dioxide absorbs with "nearly 100% efficiency" inherently neglects frequencies where there is only partial absorption, but you can see those easily make up a few percent of the total upgoing radiation. So they're can't be neglected here; like I said, it's rounding at a level that obscures all the effects in question. The argument it shouldn't change much is then wholly circular.

Thanks for the thanks, though. And hey, maybe we can be friends; but then what I really hate is when people brush off an entire field of researchers on the presumption they're all too enslaved by money to give honest results or too ignorant to have considered simple physics. Climate scientists on the whole put up with a lot of defamation and deserve better than that.

jmdoman
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby jmdoman » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:29 pm UTC

McBee wrote:I am saddened to see that in a forum which is supopsed to attract people who science, so many people, some of them probably scientists (not climatologists, but scientists nevertheless) disagree with ... actual climate scientists. (...or nitpick at one unfortunate hyperbole about palm trees...)
Spoiler:
Image

Image

Image

...How educated do you have to be, to become a politics denier?


Gee whiz, I didn't realize scientific truths were determined by scientists voting on things!
Can all the scientists please vote that FTL drives are possible, so we can get galactic conquest started?

jmdoman
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby jmdoman » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:33 pm UTC

zjxs wrote:"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Alberto Brandolini

Climate change denial is the creationism of the 2010s, a veritable gish-gallop. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop There's a lot of science out there folks. I'm out, until someone cleans the stables.

So as far as you're concerned, the science is undeniably settled, and you're not interested in hearing any attempts at arguing with it?

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby speising » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:33 pm UTC

if 97% of all physicists would agree that ftl is possible, i would indeed assume that ftl is possible.
probably there wouldn't be nearly as much dissent here as about climate change, too.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3654
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:33 pm UTC

One of the things happening here in the UK is that a bunch of Economics students at various universities are complaining that the theories they're being taught all predict that there would be no crash in 2008 - despite the existence of both theories and potential lecturers that do explain it as something other than an unpredictable event or act of god or whatever the mainstream explanation is...

Politics and fashion do affect the course of scientific research and teaching, particularly in fields where empirical evidence is harder to come by. On the other hand, what I've heard from climatologists has been "this is happening. We think this is probably what's causing it. We're not really sure precisely what the effects will actually be, but they range from bad to really bad unless something changes." - that's not the sound of people who are convinced the orthodox theory has all the answers; it's the sound of people who are seeing something genuinely alarming coming out of their models, and not being able to make it go away...

jmdoman
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby jmdoman » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:45 pm UTC

chenille wrote:To sum up: the claim that the consensus is the result of politics rather than overwhelming evidence is completely false, and honestly, projection on behalf of denialist groups, many of whom are plainly arguing based on their payroll (see aformentioned think-tanks).


Do you honestly believe there's more money in fame in doubting AGW, as opposed to affirming AGW? Which position will more likely get you ostracized by the scientific community? Which position will get you more government and private grants?
Also - I'm not a scientist, but I know that using slurs like "denialist" and invoking the scare-demon of the Koch brothers isn't scientific. It's sensationalist.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:46 pm UTC

jmdoman wrote:[So as far as you're concerned, the science is undeniably settled, and you're not interested in hearing any attempts at arguing with it?

Sure. But so far all we have is dishonest armchair logic. We literally had someone arguing that the greenhouse effect was both real and not real at the same time. That's not a useful conversation to have.

Similarly, saying whatever we do won't be enough to not drive off the cliff is no reason to drive faster.

It's not sensationalist to point out the deniers are denying.

-Crissa

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby PeteP » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:55 pm UTC

jmdoman wrote:
chenille wrote:To sum up: the claim that the consensus is the result of politics rather than overwhelming evidence is completely false, and honestly, projection on behalf of denialist groups, many of whom are plainly arguing based on their payroll (see aformentioned think-tanks).


Do you honestly believe there's more money in fame in doubting AGW, as opposed to affirming AGW? Which position will more likely get you ostracized by the scientific community? Which position will get you more government and private grants?
Also - I'm not a scientist, but I know that using slurs like "denialist" and invoking the scare-demon of the Koch brothers isn't scientific. It's sensationalist.

If you are actually capable of disproving it, then of course there is more fame in denying it. There is not much fame in adding another paper to the pile.

jmdoman
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby jmdoman » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:09 am UTC

Crissa wrote:
jmdoman wrote:[So as far as you're concerned, the science is undeniably settled, and you're not interested in hearing any attempts at arguing with it?

Sure. But so far all we have is dishonest armchair logic. We literally had someone arguing that the greenhouse effect was both real and not real at the same time. That's not a useful conversation to have.

Similarly, saying whatever we do won't be enough to not drive off the cliff is no reason to drive faster.

It's not sensationalist to point out the deniers are denying.

-Crissa

As an outside, non-scientific observer, I can't contribute much in the way of facts, and I'm not going to pretend to.
But as a human, whenever I see the "deniers" slur (which echoes Holocaust deniers) it makes me less likely to listen to their arguments. If your goal is to convince people that AGW is real, insulting them isn't the best way of doing it. Nor is calling them stupid going to win any converts.
I've skimmed through this whole thread, and it's pretty clear that the most obviously angry and emotional people are the ones on the AGW side. This makes me less likely to believe them. If you really want to convince people like me (there are lot of us) then maybe you just stick to the facts and lay off the insults.


If you are actually capable of disproving it, then of course there is more fame in denying it. There is not much fame in adding another paper to the pile.


You can't disprove or prove the future. And isn't the burden of proof on those who are arguing for a theory, not those arguing against it?
I think the fact that you put it that way indicates that you don't view AGW as a theory, but as a fact. Which is fine. It's just not the scientific method (I know at least enough science to know that.)

*Kat*
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:36 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:31 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Half a dozen people with 1-2 posts, shouting in this thread that global warming in a hoax.

I wonder, do you anti-science bigots have message board where you coordinate that kind of action? Is this some kind of paid campaign by lobbyists to make it look like climate change is not a near universally accepted fact?


Is my post count high enough for you? I'm not a regular here, but also not a stranger.

While I don't understand science, I do understand history and I know that in the early-mid 1600s there was a dramatic global *cooldown* followed by a *warm up*. This is called the mini-iceage.

I also know that in the year 1000 the weather in Iceland was warm enough to grow grapes.

History is full of examples of people blaming problems they don't understand on things that are new and different and attempting to solve those problems by turning back the clock.

User avatar
Alsadius
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Alsadius » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:32 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/


Would that be the same Peter Gleick who faked emails to slander a think-tank he disagreed with? He doesn't get to write columns about fooling people.

Diadem wrote:Half a dozen people with 1-2 posts, shouting in this thread that global warming in a hoax.

I wonder, do you anti-science bigots have message board where you coordinate that kind of action? Is this some kind of paid campaign by lobbyists to make it look like climate change is not a near universally accepted fact?


Or maybe we lurk when it's funny, and post when we have something worth saying. (Yeah, I have like 90 posts, but that's over 7 years)

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?


The reason it gets attributed to humanity is that humans have been dramatically increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and this does have some greenhouse effect. It's hardly the only effect - obviously, solar fluctuations dominate the system far above anything else - but the correlation, while not terribly robust, does exist, and the effect makes sense.

As for forest fires, this says that forests weigh 35-40 tons per acre, and a tree is mostly cellulose, which is 44% carbon by weight. We'll use the low estimate, and say that a forest fire adds 35*0.44=15.4 tons of carbon per acre burned. Coal is basically pure carbon, so that million-acre fire is the equivalent of 15.4 million tons of coal. For comparison, in 2011, the world produced about 22 million tons of coal per day, so that fire is about 16 hours of human production. Natural carbon dioxide production actually greatly exceeds human, but the difference is that trees grow back about a million times faster(not hyperbole) than coal beds, so last year's burn scar sucks a lot of this year's fire back out of the atmosphere in a way that doesn't happen with coal and oil.

jestingrabbit wrote:
cellocgw wrote:PostScript: I would like to point out, purely as an exercise, that we could increase personal energy consumption while simultaneously dropping CO2 emissions to a pittance by simply reducing the world's population to something reasonable like 700 million.


Or by removing the most wasteful 700 million.


You mean the ones who run civilization?

arto7 wrote:Interesting on the parks but now do the same thing with cities. I put in Chicago, New York, London, Moscow, Los Angeles. Put in cities on your own and tell me the trend that you find.


You find the urban heat island effect. Bane of global warming data integrity since the dawn of the thermometer.

PeteP wrote:And much worse you talk about "global climate change" like it means either global warming or cooling because they are hedging their bets. So either you are being deceitful again or you talk about a topic you don't know anything about. Either option isn't that good.


Seems like the phrase only exists to parry "But the earth isn't actually warming up" - that's certainly the only time I see true believers care much about the difference between "global warming" and "climate change". Going nonspecific to parry an opponent's thrust is good debate tactics, but not terribly honest.

Diadem wrote:No, people who disagree with me are merely people who disagree with me. But someone who is actively trying to bring about global devastation on a scale equivalent to a major asteroid strike, only for the sake of their ego, is ... well, actually bigot is much too tame a word.


So you think people who disagree with you actually secretly agree with you, but they argue for the devastation of the planet just to spite you? Jesus, that's like a whole psychological disorders course wrapped up in two sentences.

mel_env_eng wrote:Thanks, maxwell_smart, for commenting on the 200m predicted maximum sea level rise due to glacier and ice-cap melt. According to the USGS and NSDIC, this actually should be about 70-80 meters. Since I teach this figure in an undergraduate environmental engineering course, I'm curious about Randall's source for the larger number. I know this is an unlikely request, but it would be great if he (or anyone else in the forum who is familiar with it) could post the data source for this larger number. Maybe it includes the addition of a thermal expansion factor due to rising temperatures, but I haven't seen it anywhere else.


As a rule of thumb, overestimates in the global warming debate are rectally sourced data. There's a group that believes it to be their moral obligation to scare the bajeezus out of everybody, without regard to facts, because they figure the scarier they are the more likely society is to do something. (Not that Randall is necessarily part of this group - though for all I know he might be - but I suspect the original source of a number 2.5x too high is someone talking about turning the planet into Venus as though it'll happen next week.)

philip1201 wrote:
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.


I got it from a blogger I read, with no citation, so I can't actually trace it back. Apologies. However, as a proxy, look at the IPCC report from 2001, closest in time to the 1998 peak. They had 19 simulations run, the graph of which is here. I can't find any confidence intervals in a quick search, but 19 is close enough to 20 that I feel fairly confident looking at the bottom projection at any given time as a reasonable guess at the lower bound(in a back-of-napkin sort of way - I'll freely admit that this isn't rigorous). 2001 was 13 years ago, so we're in year 13, which is where the pink line dips right down. A bit of Paint-fu says that's about -0.15 degrees. (+0.57 is the high bound, for comparison). Of course, this depends heavily on when the estimates were done - we're about 0.05 degrees warmer than 2001, and 0.01 cooler than 1998, but 99 and 00 were cool years, so if those are the baselines, we've had significant warming. Frankly, I don't have the time to dig into it in great detail, so this isn't terribly useful either, but the picture is cool.

Consider the claim retracted until I find a real source.

philip1201 wrote: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.


See, this is why nobody takes fearmongering seriously.

philip1201 wrote:
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.


The places where it's not controversial are the places where nobody speaks against the theory. This doesn't make those who do any more socially acceptable.

cwDeici wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways

This is really interesting if perhaps overambitious. Thanks Cocoa!


Completely impossible, and based on a stupid premise(that it's a lack of space preventing us from building solar panels, when that's the least relevant concern). For an unnecessarily lengthy mockery of the idea, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4
Last edited by Alsadius on Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:37 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:36 am UTC

jmdoman wrote:As an outside, non-scientific observer, I can't contribute much in the way of facts, and I'm not going to pretend to.
But as a human, whenever I see the "deniers" slur (which echoes Holocaust deniers) it makes me less likely to listen to their arguments. If your goal is to convince people that AGW is real, insulting them isn't the best way of doing it. Nor is calling them stupid going to win any converts.


That would be a concern if deniers were, as a group, amenable to rational persuasion. Unfortunately, they is lots of good evidence that this is not the case. So when deniers are described, accurately, as deniers, the point is not necessarily to convince them, any more than calling out racism or homophobia causes racists and homophobes to rethink their beliefs.

I've skimmed through this whole thread, and it's pretty clear that the most obviously angry and emotional people are the ones on the AGW side.


Wow, you skimmed through the entire four page thread? You should write a thesis.
This makes me less likely to believe them. If you really want to convince people like me (there are lot of us) then maybe you just stick to the facts and lay off the insults.


The facts are the facts. Deniers are deniers (and there aren't, actually, a lot of you). Because climate denial is stupid and destructive, some people are going to respond emotionally to it, just as people do if (and it's usually the same dickheads in both cases) you claim slavery was really a great thing, or woman ought to vote the way their husbands tell them.

If you believe something stupid, for stupid reasons, and maintain it in the face of overwhelming evidence, people will justly and rightly have contempt for you. Your complaints that this makes you less likely to become less ignorant are an empty threat. Your ignorance is your problem, not mine.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Mikeski
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:41 am UTC

speising wrote:if 97% of all physicists would agree that ftl is possible, i would indeed assume that ftl is possible.
probably there wouldn't be nearly as much dissent here as about climate change, too.

120 years ago, 97% of physicists would have told you that atoms were the smallest particles stuff was made from. Now we're hunting for missing bosons and wondering about dark matter.

Consensus may not be the opposite of science, but it's at least orthogonal to it.

Climate change is hard, because we have imperfect data, and the predictability of chaotic systems is non-trivial. I'm not proud enough to state that we know the answer and therefore everyone else should shut the hell up. That's how a religion works, not a science.

Keithl had it right on the first page. Don't shut down trillion-dollar economies over a potential problem. Let the smart people work, and our exponentially-compounding knowledge will find a solution if the problem comes to pass. Luddism is very rarely the right answer, since actually fixing this problem right now would require, cause, or be as damaging as World War 3.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26821
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:49 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
speising wrote:if 97% of all physicists would agree that ftl is possible, i would indeed assume that ftl is possible.
probably there wouldn't be nearly as much dissent here as about climate change, too.

120 years ago, 97% of physicists would have told you that atoms were the smallest particles stuff was made from. Now we're hunting for missing bosons and wondering about dark matter.
Yes, and 120 years ago that was indeed what the data suggested. It would have been irrational to seriously hold a belief that there were smaller things without providing any evidence to back up that belief.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:51 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
speising wrote:if 97% of all physicists would agree that ftl is possible, i would indeed assume that ftl is possible.
probably there wouldn't be nearly as much dissent here as about climate change, too.

120 years ago, 97% of physicists would have told you that atoms were the smallest particles stuff was made from. Now we're hunting for missing bosons and wondering about dark matter.

Consensus may not be the opposite of science, but it's at least orthogonal to it.

Climate change is hard, because we have imperfect data, and the predictability of chaotic systems is non-trivial. I'm not proud enough to state that we know the answer and therefore everyone else should shut the hell up. That's how a religion works, not a science.

Keithl had it right on the first page. Don't shut down trillion-dollar economies over a potential problem. Let the smart people work, and our exponentially-compounding knowledge will find a solution if the problem comes to pass. Luddism is very rarely the right answer, since actually fixing this problem right now would require, cause, or be as damaging as World War 3.


That is nonsense from beginning to end.

Atomic theory has been added to and deepened, not scrapped.

Consensus is indeed important in science.

Climate change is plenty hard in the details, but the basic outlines are not hard: more long-lived greenhouse gases = global warming = bad vs catastrophic consequences for human civilization.

Weather is chaotic, climate is not. Watch the Cosmos clip: eyes on the man, not the dog.

Climate change is not a "potential problem."

Cutting emissions does not require "shut[ting] down trillion-dollar economies."

Attending to pollution and other negative externalities is the opposite of "Luddism." "Luddism" would be a more accurate description of treating coal plants as the indispensable cornerstone of the world economy and technological civilization.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:04 am UTC

jmdoman wrote:Do you honestly believe there's more money in fame in doubting AGW, as opposed to affirming AGW? Which position will more likely get you ostracized by the scientific community? Which position will get you more government and private grants?

In popular framing, from internet fora like this up to television news, you see reference to about as many self-proclaimed skeptics as people supporting the common position, even though there are 30 times more of the latter. And seeing as how some governments have tried to muzzle the latter, I'm not buying that there are no grants available for the former; but even if there weren't, there is lots of money and publication opportunities from think-tanks, and there is again 30 times less competition for those.

So yeah, I honestly believe there are good opportunities for people to distinguish themselves in doubting AGW, and that there would be more still if there were anything substantial to that position. To the extent that there is a bias against them now, it's nothing I wouldn't expect from people who ignore most of the evidence. On which:

jmdoman wrote:Also - I'm not a scientist, but I know that using slurs like "denialist" and invoking the scare-demon of the Koch brothers isn't scientific. It's sensationalist.

Denialist is a description of people who use disingenuous tactics to create doubt, and I make no apologies for calling someone on it. But as for the Koch brothers, maybe you want to check the context; they were just an example of funding that plainly isn't tied to affirming AGW, in response to people invoking the idea that monied interests and the scientific community are forcing everyone to toe the line. If you care about slurs, well, what do you call denouncing an entire field of researchers as untrustworthy?

Because that matters a lot to me, and yes, it's upsetting. Sure, you're claiming you care about insults, and that you would listen if only the tone were nicer. My experience has been that calling out dishonesty is worthwhile, and people who get upset at it are rarely up for listening anyway. But if you're saying otherwise, what about this casual dismissal of the climate scientists? I can't think of anything more insulting than presenting a whole field of researchers as all untrustworthy, worth ignoring all their work, on such thin justification, but that's what keeps happening here.

jmdoman wrote:And isn't the burden of proof on those who are arguing for a theory, not those arguing against it?

Something that often gets missed is that burden of proof shifts back and forth. As you accumulate evidence for something, eventually the burden is on people who deny it. They don't just get to sit back and demand more and more proof forever, or at least, not without getting called on being denialist.

Mikeski wrote:120 years ago, 97% of physicists would have told you that atoms were the smallest particles stuff was made from. Now we're hunting for missing bosons and wondering about dark matter.

For the nobody-knows-anything argument, please see The Relativity of Wrong, and maybe this comic. That humans have made mistakes before is not an argument against listening to evidence now. And as for risking our trillion-dollar economy...well, the idea that the working on AGW would put the economy in jeopardy is a guess, and one based on a lot less evidence than that AGW is putting it in jeopardy. So why are you taking the former as the certain one?
Last edited by chenille on Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:26 am UTC, edited 6 times in total.

gimmespamnow
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gimmespamnow » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:11 am UTC

jmdoman wrote:But as a human, whenever I see the "deniers" slur (which echoes Holocaust deniers) it makes me less likely to listen to their arguments. If your goal is to convince people that AGW is real, insulting them isn't the best way of doing it. Nor is calling them stupid going to win any converts.
I've skimmed through this whole thread, and it's pretty clear that the most obviously angry and emotional people are the ones on the AGW side. This makes me less likely to believe them. If you really want to convince people like me (there are lot of us) then maybe you just stick to the facts and lay off the insults.


Yeah, the holocaust is a very good analogy. One one side are the people just wanting to have a polite discussion of if it is better to gas the people they don't like or starve them, and on the other side there are some people who are all emotional about the issue. And you are right, in a situations like that, you just can't help but wonder which side has the better grip on reality...

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:20 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Mikeski wrote:
speising wrote:if 97% of all physicists would agree that ftl is possible, i would indeed assume that ftl is possible.
probably there wouldn't be nearly as much dissent here as about climate change, too.

120 years ago, 97% of physicists would have told you that atoms were the smallest particles stuff was made from. Now we're hunting for missing bosons and wondering about dark matter.
Yes, and 120 years ago that was indeed what the data suggested. It would have been irrational to seriously hold a belief that there were smaller things without providing any evidence to back up that belief.

This.

This is something that drives me nuts; 'deniers' are not someone who disagrees with an incorrect status quo. They are not someone who has knowledge that the ignorant masses don't. They are not truth holders fighting against ignorance.

They are people who refuse to awknowledge data in an effort to support their incorrect hypotheses. 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, anti-vaxers, flat earthers, the Church on geocentricity... These are people/organizations who rejected data to hold onto their incorrect hypotheses. Additionally, to pick the Church v Galileo on geocentricity, Galileo was NOT a geocentric denier; he was a scientist who followed the data, and built his hypotheses on the data.

Climate deniers are doing the same logical foolishness that they are. Their crime is certainly motivated for different reasons; no one believes that a climate denier is also inherently a holocaust denier, but comparison is quite apropos.
Last edited by Izawwlgood on Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Mikeski
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:21 am UTC

EMTP wrote:Atomic theory has been added to and deepened, not scrapped.

Parts of it have been scrapped. "Plum pudding model"?

Consensus is indeed important in science.

Consensus is useless. Being right is important. Lots of wrong people being wrong together are still wrong.

Climate change is plenty hard in the details, but the basic outlines are not hard: more long-lived greenhouse gases = global warming = bad vs catastrophic consequences for human civilization.

True holding everything else constant. How's that solar output been lately? Any missing sunspots? Where has the predicted heat gone? I've heard a theory that it's sequestered in the oceans, but why didn't we know that would happen? What else do we not know will happen?

Weather is chaotic, climate is not. Watch the Cosmos clip: eyes on the man, not the dog.

It has enough interdependent and independent variables (and I assume we've not discovered some of them yet), so same effect in the end, even if it's just complex and not chaotic in the strict mathematical sense.

Climate change is not a "potential problem."

Of course it is. Miami isn't underwater yet. Potential = hasn't happened yet.

Cutting emissions does not require "shut[ting] down trillion-dollar economies."

If turning off all the coal plants would fix it, sure. How about those land use changes? We kinda need to quit with the modern agriculture to get CO2 back to where some people think it belongs. Try starving that many people, and, as I said, WW3 or equivalent. The bigger oceans might be less damaging than preventing them.

Attending to pollution and other negative externalities is the opposite of "Luddism." "Luddism" would be a more accurate description of treating coal plants as the indispensable cornerstone of the world economy and technological civilization.

I'd love to get rid of coal plants. More for the immediately-damaging pollution (mercury, exciting oxides other than carbon) than for the CO2 warming. But even making all of the developed world nuclear-powered tomorrow doesn't fix the problem, if I've heard the story correctly.

I think we're better off hoping we can find ways to actually cool or heat the planet at will. (Atmospheric aerosols, space mirrors... or something smarter than sci-fi-book stuff.)

Mikeski
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:22 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:no one believes that a climate denier is also inherently a holocaust denier, but comparison is quite apropos.

All the way to page 4 before Godwin showed up? All y'all need to up your game. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:27 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:no one believes that a climate denier is also inherently a holocaust denier, but comparison is quite apropos.

All the way to page 4 before Godwin showed up? All y'all need to up your game. :mrgreen:
Considering it was brought up by someone who is a denier, yes, you deniers do need to up your game.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chridd, pkcommando and 87 guests