1379: "4.5 Degrees"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
EMTP wrote: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?


You know what's funny? During the Little Ice Age (I was incorrect in my earlier terminology) of the 1600s, sunspot levels were actually lower than usual. Meteorologists refer to the time as the Maunder Minimum.
source: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots

chenille
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:46 am UTC

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

Not everything to do with climate change is still a potential problem in that sense. It's of course difficult to pinpoint any particular thing on it, for the same reason that a die being weighted isn't really responsible for any given 6, even though it means there will be more of them. All you can say for sure is that there are an unusual amount of 6s coming up. I think right now the most notable are droughts. The ones in the southern US from 2010 on are probably the best known, but there have been others, and they do more damage in marginal places.

The most serious then has probably been Syria, which suffered one of its worst droughts starting 2006 and lasting for years. This helped displace large numbers of farmers to the cities, and the influx of unemployed poor helped pour gasoline on the political situation, which in turn helped lead to particularly the bitter and devastating civil war in a country many had thought relatively secure from it. Assad's mismanagement was of course critical in this, but then that's what we expect, right? The first serious effects of an environmental disaster aren't going to be mass deaths in Norway, they'll be in countries closer to the edge.

Again, I can't say that wouldn't have happened without global warming, any more than you can say someone would surely have lived through a crash if they were going under the speed limit. But I think there's enough like it that we should stop talking about its consequences as only in the future tense, and seriously enough that it makes sense to stop faulting people who are "s-h-r-i-l-l" about the money and lives it is expected to cost.

zz1000zz
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:19 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby zz1000zz » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:53 am UTC

I have to say, I find this troubling. People here are making derogatory remarks about "deniers," saying things like they "refuse to awknowledge data," but not a single one of them is pointing out this comic is a massive distortion of the evidence.

Similarly, they talk about how deniers are doing blah, blah, blah while praising the "consensus." Only, nobody has bothered to define "denier" or state what the consensus is. Anthony Watts got labeled a "denier" here, but he accepts the 97% consensus. The most prominent measure of that consensus rated agreement as matching one of these three categories:

1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize
3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it


Categories 2 and 3 require nothing more than acknowledging the greenhouse effect. If a paper's abstract said, "Methane is a greenhouse gas," it was rated as endorsing the consensus. That means anyone who acknowledges the greenhouse effect can be in the 97% consensus.

This isn't a trivial thing. Of the ~12,000 papers rated in that study, only 64 were rated as category 1. More papers (75) were rated as rejecting or minimizing the idea humans are the primary culprits than were rated as endorsing it. If you promote that 97% figure, you are promoting the idea the consensus is, "The greenhouse effect is real."

And most supposed "deniers" agree with that statement.

gimmespamnow
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gimmespamnow » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:56 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:

Climate Change will probably kill more people than Hitler. Unfortunately, they'll be hard to count; the 70,000 directly killed in the European 2003 heatwave, for instance. How exactly do you count people like that, since you can't blame any one heat wave like that on Climate Change, but you can say that things like that will certainly be more common... That heatwave also damaged a lot of crops, and someone might have wanted to eat that food, (given that we don't grow enough food to feed the world right now, pretty much every crop failure means someone eats less.) Of course, starving to death by itself is very uncommon, more common is malnutrition combined with illness, and in situations like that the illness typically gets all the "credit", the malnutrition rarely gets a footnote, but obviously, statistically it is a factor.

RMc
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:38 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby RMc » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:59 am UTC

A thought experiment: think of the people you've really, really hated in your life. A bully on the schoolyard, an ex, an authority figure who treated you unfairly, even entire groups of people who (you believe) do things that you despise. Feel the crazed, animal hatred. :evil:

Got it? OK.

This is how AGW people feel about those who question AGW. They have no problem calling them deniers, bigots or assholes because...well, because they are deniers, bigots and assholes. And much, much worse.

To AGW people, global warming is as obvious as anything could be: everyone (who matters) agrees, and those who don't agree can easily be disposed of as idiots, frauds or on the take from oil companies. All of them. People who question AGW are actively trying to destroy the planet, period. They are the most stupid and evil people imaginable. AGW people feel as much, or more, hatred toward questioners than anyone you've ever hated in your entire life.

So, this is why AGW discussions quickly get nasty and crazy. It's a religion, and nobody likes being told that their god might not be quite so divine after all.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:16 am UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:By the way, can you point out the specific paragraph in that linked article that actually supports or even addresses your assertions?


You might want to, you know, read the quote and the line under said quote that immediately followed that link.


So in other words, the bit you got from it was just the same "field fashionable" thing, and not some sort of results bias, and that was the closest thing to relevant in your article. Thank you for your honesty.


Netreker0 wrote:In science, areas of study are fashionable, not results


I'm so glad you made that claim!


(Edit: Side note. I have spent some time combing over nutritional studies and I've found a lot of conclusions that flat-out don't match the results and a lot of results that were clearly drawn from bad methodology, study design, or randomization. So... yes, results often are fashionable.)


For a second, I was tempted to take a play out of your book, and cry foul that you're focusing on one case that goes against my argument, rather than other, allegedly more important things. But I won't. Instead, I'll just say that I'm rather disappointed to find that results bias happens so much more often than I previously believed. That, and I'm going to look anything published in the field of nutrition even more skeptically than I normally see the world.

Netreker0 wrote:String theorists get funding because being the guy who completes string theory, or proves it, or completely disproves it, will get you headlines.

That's actually why they study it. How in the world does this relate to being denied tenure for studying it in the 70's?


This is precisely the question I was posing to you, as I wondered why YOU were the one actually bringing up string theory as an example. There is a bias towards funding climate change studies. That is undeniable--just look at the PACs and other political action committees that have never funded any sort of scientific research before climbing over each other to fund rigorous scientific investigations of climate change. However, your posts weren't predicated on the assumption that "climate science is a popular thing to study." Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the vast majority of research funding in the area of climate change is heavily motivated on yielding specific results--namely that climate change is real, that it is either caused by or exacerbated by human activity, and that it will have some substantial impact on our way of life in the future. Multiple people have attacked that assumption. You responded with, well, string theory. Which lead me to raise the very question that you articulated so beautifully: "How in the world does this relate to being denied tenure for studying [string theory] in the 70's?"

Your claim of a perfect science world existing fails to take into account the many, many, many paradoxes that have existed and do exist.


Strawman. Honestly, my response to strawmen arguments tend to be rude and dismissive, and that is the sort of response deliberate strawmen arguments deserve. However, since you have been... comparatively courteous and you presented an interesting article that changes will change my view of some chunks of the scientific community, I'm going to assume that you honestly misinterpreted what I was saying, and that you didn't deliberately twist my statements into some extreme and easy assailed absolute statement in order to have an easy false target to destroy, in a callow and intellectually dishonest attempt to obfuscate facts and score cheap rhetorical points.

I never claimed the world of science was perfect, nor did I claim that it was 100% homogeneous, nor did I claim there were zero exceptions to any broad generalization. And I am very sorry if that was the impression you somehow got. I simply stated that, in my experience, the "fashionable science" bias--that I believe very much exists-- was dominated primarily by favoritism towards certain sexy, controversial fields or questions, rather than favoritism towards specific results. As you already conceded, the example you posted regarding string theory demonstrates allegations of favoritism of the first type. It does not, as far as I could glean from the article, demonstrate anything at all about the type of favoritism you're arguing about, that of the latter type.

And just in case I wasn't clear before, the relevance to the debate at hand is this: Your entire argument tries to explain away the substantial consensus regarding climate change by arguing that it is results bias that favors methodology favoring a certain result. In order to substantially undermine your argument, I didn't need to show that science is perfect, and that there is no sort of bias. It is sufficient to argue that results bias is not a dominant force, at least not on the order of causing 90%+ consensus all by itself. The other kind of bias, the string theory bias with which you rapidly vacillate between citing as a relevant example, and dismissing as an unrelated issue entirely, that bias would not favor one result over another. At best, it would put much more money into a certain area of research. At worst, it would do so to the detriment of other important areas of research, while also letting in more flawed studies ad PACs and think tanks were desperate to produce the next big piece on climate change.

Now, you've done a decent enough job showing that results bias is more prevalent than I realized. So, I acknowledge your point and I feel thoroughly humbled, if that makes you feel better. However, I think your argument is still severely undermined by the points raised my myself and others. Just because the bias exists in other parts of science doesn't mean it exists in climate climate science. Assuming arguendo that results bias exists in climate science, your argument further depends on the assumption that results bias heavily favors findings that climate change is real (or alternately, that results bias heavily favors finds that climate change does not exist, and through unknown mechanisms paradoxically produces flawed studies that fraudulently show that climate change is real.) As others have pointed out more articulately than I have, this is where your argument is weakest. In the private sector, far more money is tied up in companies that immediately benefit from the no-climate-change result than from the climate change result. The no-climate-change camp also consists of institutions and companies with longer histories and thus more time and opportunity to build relationships with those in government and universities that make policy decisions. Setting aside this sort of influence, which tends to ignore party lines, power in government has been passed back and forth over the years between a party that strongly favors one result, and a party that favors the opposite result, so on that front things seem to be a wash.

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 2:19 am UTC

*Kat* wrote:
Mikeski wrote:
EMTP wrote: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?


You know what's funny? During the Little Ice Age (I was incorrect in my earlier terminology) of the 1600s, sunspot levels were actually lower than usual. Meteorologists refer to the time as the Maunder Minimum.
source: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots
Did you read your own link?
From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth's climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth's climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth's climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth's climate.
That hardly seems to indicate that climatologists are convinced. Maybe the Little Ice Age was due to European Feudalism, afterall, it was going pretty strong then!

zz1000zz wrote:I have to say, I find this troubling. People here are making derogatory remarks about "deniers," saying things like they "refuse to awknowledge data," but not a single one of them is pointing out this comic is a massive distortion of the evidence.
The comic isn't a massive distortion of the evidence, and, not surprisingly, the AGW deniers who have been in this thread have done nothing to coherently prove otherwise. We've had American Thinker linked articles and data dumps that ignore the argument. So, yes, if by 'derogatory remarks' you mean ""refuse to acknowledge data" (as I said), then yes, absolutely, I will stand by those derogatory remarks. As a scientist, I find the refusal to acknowledge data to be a pretty grave and shitty behavior, but hey, I recognize (and I think many people in this thread do too) that not everyone is a scientist. Which is fine; but kindly then, stop believing you know better.

zz1000zz wrote:Similarly, they talk about how deniers are doing blah, blah, blah while praising the "consensus." Only, nobody has bothered to define "denier" or state what the consensus is. Anthony Watts got labeled a "denier" here, but he accepts the 97% consensus. The most prominent measure of that consensus rated agreement as matching one of these three categories:
I don't think you get it... This 'consensus' that you glibly put in quotes to indicate that it's not a thing, is actually factually a thing.That research on the consensus was performed by a pretty renown denier, who recanted when he analyzed the data. What deniers are doing is basically saying 'You don't know humans don't have six hearts, just because we haven't found five more hearts doesn't mean they aren't there! Why, you monocardiac conspiracists are all in it together, the so called 'consensus' is just self congratulatory pats on the back!'.

And it's obnoxious and frustrating, because there are people who are doing actual science being told their actual science is invalid because non-scientists out there want to imagine the world differently. So, yeah. Derogatory or otherwise; you deniers are ignoring reality, ignoring data, to hold onto your false worldview. And it's literally, honest to goodness, holding humanity back, and I really, really want it to stop.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:29 am UTC

chenille wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Of course it is. Miami isn't underwater yet. Potential = hasn't happened yet.

Not everything to do with climate change is still a potential problem in that sense. It's of course difficult to pinpoint any particular thing on it, for the same reason that a die being weighted isn't really responsible for any given 6, even though it means there will be more of them. All you can say for sure is that there are an unusual amount of 6s coming up. I think right now the most notable are droughts. The ones in the southern US from 2010 on are probably the best known, but there have been others, and they do more damage in marginal places.


In many cases I have encountered, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL (in case someone tries to straw man me again), unwillingness to even consider that man-made climate change might be real is based on awareness of this sort of uncertainty and a psychological inability to deal with it. As somebody whose natural state is to strongly disfavor any sort of government regulation absent compelling reasons, I prefer black and white issues of individual rights and carefully delineated powers. And where things are gray, I prefer that intervention--whether through government mandate or voluntary self-regulation--come only after rigorous examination that quantifies costs and benefits and risks to the best of our ability. Which is why climate change tends to put me on the edge of having my head explode. I think that the scientific community has proven that climate change exists by a preponderance of evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that we aren't anywhere close to being able to reliably quantify the risks and effects that climate change poses, and yet those of us with similar beliefs to my own find ourselves forced to compare quantifiable economic costs of intervention (as well as a loss of freedom) to the unquantifiable alternative. For some, it is simply more comforting to believe that the dilemma doesn't exist. For me, I have come to accept being constantly uncomfortable.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:06 am UTC

jmdoman wrote: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.

Perhaps that's because the ones on the other side were removed?

What insults, BTW?

It's hard to have a discussion when what's being brought as a challenge is so far from reality as to be nth dimensional. I can say the Earth is round to a flat-Earther, but I cannot argue their assertions on scientific bounds. Their arguments when cloaked in math don't work and I can't explain their math to them.

I am arguing from the point of view of it being a fact. Because it is. I can point to the observations, but what use is it? We had someone arguing that greenhouse gases couldn't greenhouse our atmosphere because greenhouse gasses can't happen. That's not even an amount of logic that can be discussed!

-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:09 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

zz1000zz
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:19 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby zz1000zz » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:09 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
zz1000zz wrote:I have to say, I find this troubling. People here are making derogatory remarks about "deniers," saying things like they "refuse to awknowledge data," but not a single one of them is pointing out this comic is a massive distortion of the evidence.
The comic isn't a massive distortion of the evidence, and, not surprisingly, the AGW deniers who have been in this thread have done nothing to coherently prove otherwise. We've had American Thinker linked articles and data dumps that ignore the argument. So, yes, if by 'derogatory remarks' you mean ""refuse to acknowledge data" (as I said), then yes, absolutely, I will stand by those derogatory remarks. As a scientist, I find the refusal to acknowledge data to be a pretty grave and shitty behavior, but hey, I recognize (and I think many people in this thread do too) that not everyone is a scientist. Which is fine; but kindly then, stop believing you know better.


You just claimed you "find the refusal to acknowledge data to be a pretty grave and shitty behavior," yet you flat-out deny the fact this comic rests upon a massive distortion of the evidence. I typed up a clear explanation, including a specific quote from the IPCC which demonstrated my case, on the first page of this topic (around post #10). Nobody has made any attempt to dispute it. That's not surprising given it's unquestionably true. Even the source given by this comic (the IPCC) makes it clear this comic is an exaggeration.

Izawwlgood wrote:
zz1000zz wrote:Similarly, they talk about how deniers are doing blah, blah, blah while praising the "consensus." Only, nobody has bothered to define "denier" or state what the consensus is. Anthony Watts got labeled a "denier" here, but he accepts the 97% consensus. The most prominent measure of that consensus rated agreement as matching one of these three categories:
I don't think you get it... This 'consensus' that you glibly put in quotes to indicate that it's not a thing, is actually factually a thing.That research on the consensus was performed by a pretty renown denier, who recanted when he analyzed the data. What deniers are doing is basically saying 'You don't know humans don't have six hearts, just because we haven't found five more hearts doesn't mean they aren't there! Why, you monocardiac conspiracists are all in it together, the so called 'consensus' is just self congratulatory pats on the back!'.


Please don't make things up. I don't know for sure which "pretty renown denier" you're talking about, but I've never seen any recant as you claim. I know for a fact the first "denier" to highlight that fact has never recanted it. That's because it's true. Indisputably. Anyone who looks at the categories used in the paper will see the meaninglessness of the "consensus."* The only way to ignore it is to simply ignore what the paper says.

Izawwlgood wrote:And it's obnoxious and frustrating, because there are people who are doing actual science being told their actual science is invalid because non-scientists out there want to imagine the world differently. So, yeah. Derogatory or otherwise; you deniers are ignoring reality, ignoring data, to hold onto your false worldview. And it's literally, honest to goodness, holding humanity back, and I really, really want it to stop.


Given you've repeatedly called me a denier while having absolutely no idea what my views on global warming are, you don't have the slightest shred of credibility when it comes to talking about what people do. If either one of us wants "to imagine the world differently," it's you. You're the only one refusing to look at evidence or acknowledge basic facts. And you're also the only one who jumps to conclusions about what the other believes.

*I put the "consensus" in quotation marks because there is no single consensus on global warming. There are many different positions, and there are varying degrees of "consensus" on each.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:43 am UTC

*Kat* wrote: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.

Citation for this? There's no evidence of a global cooldown at this point, btw. We don't have global data for that time period. We do have evidence of there being lowered solar output, though. (We have European data for the time-period, but not global data.)

Alsadius wrote:
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.

First off, that's an ad hominem via genetic fallacy, while you yourself are committing a tu quoque fallacy. You mean, the guy who fooled a think-tank into slandering itself? Do you have a citation for that being declared slander? No, you don't. If it were, they'd have had a case. (But if they sued him, they'd have to turn over their emails to the court.)

...And then you go on with the fallacy that there can't be more than one cause. It's a complex world - just because you were kicked by a bully yesterday doesn't mean you're not being kicked by your own argument today.

And then you have the fallacy about humans providing a small portion of carbon into the atmosphere. (Here's why you're wrong, btw) Just because something is small, doesn't mean the effect can't be big. How small do you think the damage to your total is when you have, say, the flu? It's tiny, a much smaller part of the system than human carbon emissions vs natural!

Mikeski wrote:Keithl had it right on the first page. Don't shut down trillion-dollar economies over a potential problem.

Really? That's quite interesting. Perhaps you are a libertarian? They're a large source of denial. They deny all sorts of externalities, long after they've been scientifically proven beyond any doubts. Shut down? Is that why we have people saying solar is completely unfeasible and that we shouldn't replace one fuel source with one that is carbon neutral? How is that shutting down? It's not! Anyhow, this was a better reply to that gibberish.

And people wonder why sock puppet-like answers like this get rather heated responses.

Lastly, to zz1000zz: You refused to read the cited link. You could have known who the denier was, by looking up at the source, but you didn't. That's why you're rightly called a denier, and then ignored. You brought nothing to the conversation.

-Crissa

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
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 4:08 am UTC

Alsadius wrote:
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.

Apologies for just slapping in the url for the first Google result.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-by-half/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -1998.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/statisticia ... ng-a-myth/
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global- ... 121017.htm

Still, though, you guys might want to stop throwing out already-debunked denialist talking points if you want to be taken seriously here. So far it really does look a lot like a debate with creationists, who still like to bring up the eye as though no one in the past 150 years has had anything whatsoever to say about its evolution.
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
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 4:53 am UTC

zz1000zz wrote:ou just claimed you "find the refusal to acknowledge data to be a pretty grave and shitty behavior," yet you flat-out deny the fact this comic rests upon a massive distortion of the evidence. I typed up a clear explanation, including a specific quote from the IPCC which demonstrated my case, on the first page of this topic (around post #10). Nobody has made any attempt to dispute it. That's not surprising given it's unquestionably true. Even the source given by this comic (the IPCC) makes it clear this comic is an exaggeration.
You have quote snipped a piece of the IPCC's report that says they aren't 100% confident of the outcome the comic is based on. That in no way shape or form disproves or counters the comic, nor does it suggest that you have laid 'unquestionably true' counters to the outcome. It means you have underlined that the IPCC has listed a number of outcomes.
zz1000zz wrote:Please don't make things up. I don't know for sure which "pretty renown denier" you're talking about, but I've never seen any recant as you claim. I know for a fact the first "denier" to highlight that fact has never recanted it. That's because it's true. Indisputably. Anyone who looks at the categories used in the paper will see the meaninglessness of the "consensus."* The only way to ignore it is to simply ignore what the paper says.
As Crissa points out, you evidently are unaware that blue text is a hyperlink. I suggest you click on the blue text.
zz1000zz wrote:Given you've repeatedly called me a denier while having absolutely no idea what my views on global warming are, you don't have the slightest shred of credibility when it comes to talking about what people do. If either one of us wants "to imagine the world differently," it's you. You're the only one refusing to look at evidence or acknowledge basic facts. And you're also the only one who jumps to conclusions about what the other believes.

*I put the "consensus" in quotation marks because there is no single consensus on global warming. There are many different positions, and there are varying degrees of "consensus" on each.
Given that you put 'consensus' in quotation marks means you are a denier, and again, I am quite comfortable affixing the label of denier to you. You've quite plainly revealed what your views on global warming are, given your previous posts. There are, in point of fact, not 'many different positions' nor are there varying degrees of consensus. I suggest clicking on the link I provided.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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 5:05 am UTC

gimmespamnow wrote:Climate Change will probably kill more people than Hitler. Unfortunately, they'll be hard to count; the 70,000 directly killed in the European 2003 heatwave, for instance. How exactly do you count people like that, since you can't blame any one heat wave like that on Climate Change, but you can say that things like that will certainly be more common... That heatwave also damaged a lot of crops, and someone might have wanted to eat that food, (given that we don't grow enough food to feed the world right now, pretty much every crop failure means someone eats less.) Of course, starving to death by itself is very uncommon, more common is malnutrition combined with illness, and in situations like that the illness typically gets all the "credit", the malnutrition rarely gets a footnote, but obviously, statistically it is a factor.


One would think we can do the same sort of regression that leads to counts of cancer victims from nuclear accidents or whatnot. Harder to control for population changes(which is why the worst hurricanes would always be the newest, even if the weather itself got less bad over time), but doable. And you are in fact exactly wrong about not having enough food - modern society has a massive abundance of food. Why do you think obesity is a problem, and starvation isn't(barring a few countries too messed-up to distribute food properly)?

Crissa wrote:
Alsadius wrote: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.

First off, that's an ad hominem via genetic fallacy, while you yourself are committing a tu quoque fallacy. You mean, the guy who fooled a think-tank into slandering itself? Do you have a citation for that being declared slander? No, you don't. If it were, they'd have had a case. (But if they sued him, they'd have to turn over their emails to the court.)

...And then you go on with the fallacy that there can't be more than one cause. It's a complex world - just because you were kicked by a bully yesterday doesn't mean you're not being kicked by your own argument today.

And then you have the fallacy about humans providing a small portion of carbon into the atmosphere. (Here's why you're wrong, btw) Just because something is small, doesn't mean the effect can't be big. How small do you think the damage to your total is when you have, say, the flu? It's tiny, a much smaller part of the system than human carbon emissions vs natural!


I don't much care what fallacies I'm using. The man is a filthy liar, who even in the best case decided that the best way to act while president of an ethics board was to pretend to be someone else in order to get secret documents he had no right to so that he could prove a point about a group he didn't like. On top of that, it's pretty clear(not "proven in court" clear, because they don't want to litigate and the damages were de minimis anyways, but I have a brain) that after he scammed them out of their documents, he decided that they weren't sexy enough, so he wrote one of his own to slander them. When people accurately figured out which document was the sketchy one and who had wrote it before the guy even went public, it seems pretty strong evidence to me. So yeah, ad hominem, whatever. I don't tolerate that level of flagrant hypocrisy.

And your link said precisely the same thing that I did. Either you need to re-read your link or my post. Remember, I think AGW is real, I just happen to think that a lot of the people advocating it are giant wankers who tarnish their beliefs by holding them.

gmalivuk wrote:Apologies for just slapping in the url for the first Google result.


I got into a fairly intense debate a while back about him, so the name popped out at me. But fair enough.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
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 5:14 am UTC

There's been a lot of criticism of the methods used to ascribe deaths to nuclear accidents, basically amounting to the fact that researchers have a great deal of freedom in choosing which deaths to count.

So yes, we could do something similar, but the fact remains that they'll be hard to count. (No one said impossible.)
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)

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:14 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
*Kat* wrote:
Mikeski wrote:
EMTP wrote: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?


You know what's funny? During the Little Ice Age (I was incorrect in my earlier terminology) of the 1600s, sunspot levels were actually lower than usual. Meteorologists refer to the time as the Maunder Minimum.
source: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots
Did you read your own link?
From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth's climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth's climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth's climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth's climate.
That hardly seems to indicate that climatologists are convinced. Maybe the Little Ice Age was due to European Feudalism, afterall, it was going pretty strong then!


Feudalism? Dear God, Help me....

For one thing, The Little Ice Age took place during the 17th and 18th Centuries while European Feudalism was pretty much over and done with by the 15th. For another fuedalism is a political system not an environmental mindset. If the feudal lords had required the rain-forest to be cut down you might have a point. Maybe. Big Maybe.

But let's return to reality and look at the facts.

Fact: There was a period over pre-industrial Europe, and probably the rest of the world as well but I'm still pulling up sources to support his..
Fact: This cooling coincided with a period of low sunspot activity.
My point? I didn't have one in that post. I was just pointing something out.

And while scientists may not be entirely convinced about the *cause* of these climatic changes, there does seem to be a strong *correlation* between period of slow sunspot activity and global cool down.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
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 5:18 am UTC

The point with feudalism was to bring up another correlation. Not to seriously suggest it as the real cause.
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)

codehead
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:33 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby codehead » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:45 am UTC

I'm really surprised that Randall is so far off with facts, and science seems to be missing from this one...

"200m sea level rise"—One would expect that's from "0", but it would have to be from "-1 IAU". There's not enough ice, even with thermal expansion, to get more than about a third of that figure.

"Palm trees at the poles"—The north pole is 4,261m under water even now, and the nearest last is 700km away (maybe under water by then).

"likely...4-5C by the end of the century"—This certainly can't come from the latest IPCC report. Their most extreme scenario (of several), RCP8.5, is 2.6-5C, but even if that most-extreme scenario plays out, they don't don't give "likely" status to 4C or higher.

The third point is non-scientific (advocates pick numbers they like and call them "likely"), but the other two points...like I said, I'm really surprised...

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The point with feudalism was to bring up another correlation. Not to seriously suggest it as the real cause.


And my point in bringing up the Little Ice Age to begin with was to show that there have been climate changes since before Man started releasing CO2 into the atmosphere on a regular basis.

zz1000zz
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:19 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby zz1000zz » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:30 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
zz1000zz wrote:ou just claimed you "find the refusal to acknowledge data to be a pretty grave and shitty behavior," yet you flat-out deny the fact this comic rests upon a massive distortion of the evidence. I typed up a clear explanation, including a specific quote from the IPCC which demonstrated my case, on the first page of this topic (around post #10). Nobody has made any attempt to dispute it. That's not surprising given it's unquestionably true. Even the source given by this comic (the IPCC) makes it clear this comic is an exaggeration.
You have quote snipped a piece of the IPCC's report that says they aren't 100% confident of the outcome the comic is based on. That in no way shape or form disproves or counters the comic, nor does it suggest that you have laid 'unquestionably true' counters to the outcome. It means you have underlined that the IPCC has listed a number of outcomes.


No, I did not. You are making this up.

As I said in my first post, the IPCC report gives four RCPs. The highest of these (8.5) assumes no actions are ever taken to combat global warming (and even then, is considered by many climate scientists to be an over-estimate). This comic talks about the requirement of prompt, aggressive action, something only true for the lowest RCP (2.6). Only RCP8.5 even comes close to justifying the numbers in this comic, and it has a forcing more than three times as high as the scenario this comic claims to use.

Izawwlgood wrote:
zz1000zz wrote:Please don't make things up. I don't know for sure which "pretty renown denier" you're talking about, but I've never seen any recant as you claim. I know for a fact the first "denier" to highlight that fact has never recanted it. That's because it's true. Indisputably. Anyone who looks at the categories used in the paper will see the meaninglessness of the "consensus."* The only way to ignore it is to simply ignore what the paper says.
As Crissa points out, you evidently are unaware that blue text is a hyperlink. I suggest you click on the blue text.


I wasn't unaware of that. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you weren't being a complete buffoon. Even the link you offered makes it abundantly clear Richard Tol is not a denier, quoting him as saying:

There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.


I preferred not to assume you were claiming a person is a denier while using a link which says this of his argument:

In any case, Tol's critique explicitly acknowledges the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real and accurate.


Similarly, I know for a fact Richard Tol has never recanted like you claim. Given I knew your claim could not possibly apply to Tol, and given your own link makes it abundantly clear Tol is not a denier, I felt it was best not to assume you were calling Tol a denier.

Izawwlgood wrote:
zz1000zz wrote:Given you've repeatedly called me a denier while having absolutely no idea what my views on global warming are, you don't have the slightest shred of credibility when it comes to talking about what people do. If either one of us wants "to imagine the world differently," it's you. You're the only one refusing to look at evidence or acknowledge basic facts. And you're also the only one who jumps to conclusions about what the other believes.

*I put the "consensus" in quotation marks because there is no single consensus on global warming. There are many different positions, and there are varying degrees of "consensus" on each.
Given that you put 'consensus' in quotation marks means you are a denier, and again, I am quite comfortable affixing the label of denier to you. You've quite plainly revealed what your views on global warming are, given your previous posts. There are, in point of fact, not 'many different positions' nor are there varying degrees of consensus. I suggest clicking on the link I provided.


You haven't addressed a single point I've raised with anything other than hand waving, insults and blatant fabrications. You've shown you're willing to call anyone a denier, even if he explicitly agrees with the position you claim deniers deny. You claim to know my views on global warming, yet you couldn't possibly describe them to anyone. Finally, you claim, in contradiction to practically every scientist in the world, that there are not many different positions with varying degrees of consensus.

You're not just making things up. You're spouting off what might as well be the delusional ramblings of a street-corner wino.

Seriously, what I said about the RCPs and the IPCC's position isn't remotely controversial. It's taken directly from the IPCC. If I could post links, I could show sources like RealClimate acknowledging it. Heck, even Skeptical Science, the source of the article you told me to look at, acknowledges the same point.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5965
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:48 am UTC

codehead wrote:"Palm trees at the poles"—The north pole is 4,261m under water even now, and the nearest last is 700km away (maybe under water by then).


I think that this line is about what the situation was the last time that we had those temperatures. At the time, the start of the cretaceous, there was land at the north and south poles.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:08 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote: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?


I don't see why one couldn't hate one's own gender identity and the other at a same time, without being asexual? It'd be unusual, but easily possible as it doesn't directly conflict to hate two different things even if they're somewhat opposite of each other (it's difficult and potentially destructive, but also possible to love and hate the same thing at the same time at a deep emotional level), it happens for people with cultures quite often. Hating one's own ethnicity or gender is far more rare than hating one's own culture as one can't choose one's way out (might be later with genetic engineering though), but still possible.

Really not sure if you're saying anything about me, but the reason I brought it up out of context was an old and deep emotional scar that's I've been unable to unloop from my mind recently (I have to do that quite often for most bad memories, sometimes over and over for years forever), I got to thinking about it because of the way some of the AGW-deniers and doomsayers are quarreling.
As for the misandry thing, partly that the misandry wasn't necessarily unjustified (violence and oppression is something usually worthy of hate after all, but I don't bother with it these days), partly because at the time I got kind of philosophical about it and said men were responsible for most evil due to the violence and political oppression that occurred, which while accurate in the facts seeing as how men have had the most power, the conclusion of 'evil' is far too philosophical a descriptor.
I'm not sure but it seems you're suggesting that me bringing this up out of context is suggestive of misogyny and why I was treated like that, because I presented too many facts or drew too many conclusions either then or now? Rest assured all I did at the time was point out rough numbers backed up by a couple of studies on strength and social skill differences in men and women and ask if it was roughly correct and what else others knew about. If that's what you're saying I don't think you should suggest a person discriminates other people unless you're sure about anyone, as its very serious.
I assure you, I do not discriminate people of culture, race, gender, intelligence, etc., the differences are too minute. I do discriminate animals, though my position on them is that we're undergoing a holocaust of unparalleled proportions, and some species such as monkeys, dolphins, parrots, cephalopods, etc., should be given limited human rights.
Last edited by cwDeici on Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:49 am UTC, edited 27 times in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9852
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby addams » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:11 am UTC

*Kat* wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The point with feudalism was to bring up another correlation. Not to seriously suggest it as the real cause.


And my point in bringing up the Little Ice Age to begin with was to show that there have been climate changes since before Man started releasing CO2 into the atmosphere on a regular basis.

There was something in the air during the Little Ice Age.

I like the Volcano guess. It is a good guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice ... c_activity

The year without a summer.
That was a rough year.

Do you know about the Dutch Chemist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Cr ... al_warming

He is a smart one. He could cool it off.
Sulfur. He knows Chemist Stuff about sulfur.

He can play the part of the Evil Scientist.
Or; The Bumbling Intellectual.

Do what he says or it will be forty degrees below zero in your bedroom.
I think that man can run a team that is capable of Man Made Global Climate Change.

Should he do it?
If you think man can not effect global weather, then you don't care.

Why should you?
Dare him. (shrug)

ech. Dutch. The man is Dutch.
He may have developed one of those Even Tempers.

Daring him will not get the sulfur into the air.
He might not get angry and Push The Button.

I know we have a collective problem.
I don't want it solved that well.

Human life may not survive Global Warming.
Human life may not survive Global Cooling.

We are SOO delicate.
We have such a narrow range of tolerable temperatures.

Maybe we can double down and evolve into Water Bears.
They have a much better survival rate than Humans do.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:26 am UTC

People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is. Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.

Cities can be rebuilt again and again. Example: Charleston, South Carolina. It was leveled by the Civil War (1864?), drowned by a hurricane (1868?), and flattened by an earthquake (1886). From the ashes it rose again. Similar stories can be told about Galveston, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans.

People who fear global warming fear losing land to the sea, but what about the land we will gain? There are large stretches of Earth where few people live because its too cold and too dry. Global warming will change that. Places that are now cold and dry will become warmer and wetter -- and more hospitable. We'll lose islands but gain lakes. There is a whole continent at the south pole inhabited by nothing but penguins and their predators that we can move onto.

Will this lead to huge socio-political upheavals? Yeah. But again, that's not a bad thing. History has shown time and again that the longer things stay the same, the more rotten the status quo becomes. Example: Every Empire Ever.

Earth's climate *has* changed in the past. It has done so without human influence. It *will* change in the future, with or without our help. Volcanoes will erupt. Asteroids will strike. And when they do the climate will change. Maybe for a few years. Maybe for a few hundred years. Either way, we will survive.

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:41 am UTC

For all the faults of our present era it is the most vibrant ever. We're well on our way to an interplanetary civilization.
Status quo right now is a good thing.

codehead
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:33 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby codehead » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:42 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
codehead wrote:"Palm trees at the poles"—The north pole is 4,261m under water even now, and the nearest last is 700km away (maybe under water by then).


I think that this line is about what the situation was the last time that we had those temperatures. At the time, the start of the cretaceous, there was land at the north and south poles.


Ah, I see. I thought "Cretaceous" was figurative, for descriptive purposes, not literal. I realize it's not a time line, but it does give the impression that it's laid out that way, since most of it increases in time as well as temperature. Thanks for the clarification.

But the +200m would have to be referenced to another, unnamed cold period, not the current levels. Maybe not wrong, but misleading.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Red Hal » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:54 am UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Rejecting it for the UK is fine, but can you actually show me evidence of the UK government doesn't engage in these practices? Given that the peer-review process is introducing this problem (keep in mind that I'm not bashing the peer-review process, as it's important and necessary), it's not absurd to say that the peer-review process for research funding in the UK could be causing these problems as well.
I read all of your post prior to the quoted part, I have not quoted it for brevity. I am at the beginning of the process to provide the evidence requested (or not, should the data prove that my rejection of your assertion was based on outdated information) but it may take a while; getting interesting information out of NERC (national environmental research council) via GOTW can be a bit hit or miss.

I've narrowed it down to 469 current grants in which the extract carries the phrase "climate change" in the title. The next step is to assess the relevance of those to climate research, and then take that list and assess the extent to which it could be considered biased. Since they are current, then I'm not expecting any outputs to be in peer-reviewed journals just yet, but hey, who says this has to be a short-term endeavour?

Of course, given my search terms I'm expecting to see a certain amount of bias; if you can suggest better ones I'm happy to try that. Or even try it for yourself here: http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/goti.asp?c=1

And by the way, of course funding from government is political. It shouldn't be, but it is. Fortunately that funding filters through enough layers of honest people to ameliorate that political bias substantially.

Edit: I *love* the title of this one! http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_full.asp?pc ... classtype=
Last edited by Red Hal on Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

bane2571
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby bane2571 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:09 am UTC

I'm quite disappointed by this comic to the point where I'm making my first post for a few reasons, most related to accuracy:

From Right to left:
2 IAU block:
Gets units wrong and overestimates maximum possible sea level rise by a factor of three.
"Palm trees" in the poles is silly twice over, you'd get temperate forests and only in Antarctica, since the north pole would be kind of liquid.

1 IAU block
This block I have the most issue with.
1 IAU is defined as 4.5 deg C, The IPCC report http://www.climatechange2013.org/images ... _FINAL.pdf shows Worst case scenario of 2100 temperatures being around 4.2 degrees higher, but the error range (shown to the right of the graph on page 9 of that document. Puts the increase at a range of 2.5-4.8. And that is the worst case scenario which assumes increasing emissions over the coming century.

The other problem is the ?, this seems to be saying "we don't know what will happen" but also seems to be trying to imply it's going to be bad. This feels like a cop out to me.

"Where we are today"
The bar between 0 and 1 has 4 segments, each segment is therefore 1.125 degrees, this marker appears about 3/4 the way along the first segment - 0.84 degrees - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt puts the 2013 number at 0.59, closer to half way.

0 - Average in modern times.
No baseline stated, some people use the 70s, some the 80s. This point doesn't make the distinction clear. The heading however cites the "20th century norm" but I have no concept for what that means.

I don't have a problem with the less than 0 areas.

When I first saw this comic I wondered if it was designed to bait out the kind of arguments that are going on in this thread. It almost seems to be a social experiment on how people will react to bad global warming reporting that isn't clearly backed up by sources. For someone that is usually good at researching his numbers I would of expected this comic to be more accurate. The biggest detriment to bringing CAGW to the public attention is shitty reporting that misstates facts and overstates problems to the point where they become meaningless. This is another one of those cases of shitty reporting and it is a damn shame.

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:13 am UTC

Well, I dunno, Randall has always been VERY concerned with the environment, to his credit. He's generally very accurate (and the 200 meter claim isn't without strong proponents), but he isn't above making mistakes, and I suppose he might have his blind spots on issues he's concerned with. I'd be happy to find out he did this on purpose though, but I rather doubt it, he's only got 24 hours a day.

I think I'm going to buy the Kerbal Space Program now! : )

Anyho, how about this page guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

Which of these methods look good to ya? ^_^
Last edited by cwDeici on Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:22 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Red Hal » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:16 am UTC

bane2571 wrote:I'm quite disappointed by this comic to the point where I'm making my first post for a few reasons, most related to accuracy:

"Palm trees" in the poles is silly twice over, you'd get temperate forests and only in Antarctica, since the north pole would be kind of liquid.
Once over. North Pole I'll give you, but palms do grow in coastal temperate climates.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Wooloomooloo » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:49 am UTC

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

This is really interesting if perhaps overambitious. Thanks Cocoa!
Tell us more about fusion? :)

Sorry to cut in uninvited but since it came up (especially in relation to solar roadways, with which it was compared only days ago in a rather heated reddit thread): this is some cutting-edge fusion right there. Please note that I'm not asserting these guys have a guaranteed-to-work approach - but they definitely are real scientists, doing actual science. I figured the least I can do is tell potentially interested people that they exist...

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 633
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby keithl » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:24 am UTC

I am amused by the extremism of both "sides" of this "debate" - two camps racing for the far extremes, well beyond any range of claims made by the IPCC report in particular or the broader range of reasonable scientific interpretations in general.

Why amusement? Because there are great opportunities for creative thinking here, different from both "business as usual" and already fossilized "alternative energy as defined decades ago". If we extrapolated from 1880, we would expect New York City to be hip deep in horse poop by now. Yes, cars have replaced some of the horses, but subways and elevators in tall buildings and Fedex have replaced more. Internet, telepresence, and the miniaturization of durable goods will redefine transportation in the future.

Manufacturing? Smaller items need less material input. Better chemical processes use less energy. More water conservation in agriculture saves big bucks for an expensive primary input. A smart phone is a tiny amount of mass and energy combined with a huge amount of knowledge and cleverness. In a few decades, that smart phone will be a few milligrams of implantables grown on a microscope slide.

Extend to other reasons we use energy. One of the biggest is heating. That's why northern tier countries have much higher energy consumption than their southern neighbors. We are getting better at insulation and building design. Perhaps that will shift to the personal scale, too, and we will stop heating and cooling the air not touching skin and lungs.

Creative thinking will yield more wealth and more energy efficiency than all solar panels and windmills and electric cars combined, conspicuous consumption showpieces that badge the owner as hip and fashionable rather than financially prudent. The mix of technologies we use 20 or 50 or 100 years from now will not be vast iterations of fashionable "green" toys, but an extrapolation of "more with less", sybaritic luxuries produced cheaply at mass scale, earning big profits for the new industries producing them from almost zero material input.

The zealots of the extreme positions will be so busy pushing their obsolete agendas and closing their minds to non-extreme ideas that they won't notice and won't participate. They will end up embittered, impoverished, and irrelevant.

Those of us designing alternatives, not for their ideological correctness but for their customer-pleasing superiority and their parsimonious use of expensive resources, can win big. Invention is the creative combination of phenomena, and those understanding the most phenomena have the biggest palette to paint the future with. Learn about climate and CO2 and all the other things, not to prove or disprove a political position, but to harness their economic potential. 6.999 billion of us won't figure out how, but all it takes is a few.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:40 am UTC

*Kat* wrote:People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is. Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.


"Dinosaurs have survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than we have today" - unknown dinosaur in the very late Cretaceous.

Everyone alive today has survived everything that's happened to them so far - that doesn't mean that no-one will die tomorrow. Yes, we're in a better position to survive than most large mammals, but that doesn't mean we will.

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:44 am UTC

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

This is really interesting if perhaps overambitious. Thanks Cocoa!
Tell us more about fusion? :)

Sorry to cut in uninvited but since it came up (especially in relation to solar roadways, with which it was compared only days ago in a rather heated reddit thread): this is some cutting-edge fusion right there. Please note that I'm not asserting these guys have a guaranteed-to-work approach - but they definitely are real scientists, doing actual science. I figured the least I can do is tell potentially interested people that they exist...


Oooh, this is awesome! Thanks for showing us. :)

keithl wrote:I am amused by the extremism of both "sides" of this "debate" - two camps racing for the far extremes, well beyond any range of claims made by the IPCC report in particular or the broader range of reasonable scientific interpretations in general.

Why amusement? Because there are great opportunities for creative thinking here, different from both "business as usual" and already fossilized "alternative energy as defined decades ago". If we extrapolated from 1880, we would expect New York City to be hip deep in horse poop by now. Yes, cars have replaced some of the horses, but subways and elevators in tall buildings and Fedex have replaced more. Internet, telepresence, and the miniaturization of durable goods will redefine transportation in the future.

Manufacturing? Smaller items need less material input. Better chemical processes use less energy. More water conservation in agriculture saves big bucks for an expensive primary input. A smart phone is a tiny amount of mass and energy combined with a huge amount of knowledge and cleverness. In a few decades, that smart phone will be a few milligrams of implantables grown on a microscope slide.

Extend to other reasons we use energy. One of the biggest is heating. That's why northern tier countries have much higher energy consumption than their southern neighbors. We are getting better at insulation and building design. Perhaps that will shift to the personal scale, too, and we will stop heating and cooling the air not touching skin and lungs.

Creative thinking will yield more wealth and more energy efficiency than all solar panels and windmills and electric cars combined, conspicuous consumption showpieces that badge the owner as hip and fashionable rather than financially prudent. The mix of technologies we use 20 or 50 or 100 years from now will not be vast iterations of fashionable "green" toys, but an extrapolation of "more with less", sybaritic luxuries produced cheaply at mass scale, earning big profits for the new industries producing them from almost zero material input.

The zealots of the extreme positions will be so busy pushing their obsolete agendas and closing their minds to non-extreme ideas that they won't notice and won't participate. They will end up embittered, impoverished, and irrelevant.

Those of us designing alternatives, not for their ideological correctness but for their customer-pleasing superiority and their parsimonious use of expensive resources, can win big. Invention is the creative combination of phenomena, and those understanding the most phenomena have the biggest palette to paint the future with. Learn about climate and CO2 and all the other things, not to prove or disprove a political position, but to harness their economic potential. 6.999 billion of us won't figure out how, but all it takes is a few.


Yeah, it's a waste when people get extreme about obviously falsifiable positions, other than hurt feelings it significantly retards the progress of humanity. Though I think the past has shown that their positions can be taken to the highest level (Bush government denialists and Al Gore as a presidential candidate (dunno about his political positions on environmentalism, just going by his movie), while more reasonable solutions are often starved of funding and public interest.

Do you think we'll get fusion within the next two three decades?
And it's a bit out of context, but what about engineered negligible senescence within the next 50-70 years or so? It seems rather unlikely to me unless a lot of political pressure is generated to achieve it, though there are some signs (a bunch of life extension parties getting started in 2012).
Last edited by cwDeici on Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:58 am UTC, edited 5 times in total.

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 11:55 am UTC

zz1000zz wrote:As I said in my first post, the IPCC report gives four RCPs. The highest of these (8.5) assumes no actions are ever taken to combat global warming (and even then, is considered by many climate scientists to be an over-estimate). This comic talks about the requirement of prompt, aggressive action, something only true for the lowest RCP (2.6). Only RCP8.5 even comes close to justifying the numbers in this comic, and it has a forcing more than three times as high as the scenario this comic claims to use.
Whiiiiiiich is what I said; you have pointed out that the comic is picking the worst outcome scenario, and citing that as proof that the comic is incorrect.
zz1000zz wrote:I wasn't unaware of that. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you weren't being a complete buffoon. Even the link you offered makes it abundantly clear Richard Tol is not a denier, quoting him as saying:
You... Dude, keep up with your own statements. You said there was no such denier being mentioned. Richard Tol is/was a well known denier, who, like you, asserted there was no concensus among scientists on climate change. I even quoted you making that argument in my last post, which you have since dropped. I linked the article I linked (that you now seem to be aware of existing, so can I only assume you have clicked on the link) because Richard Tol, a denier claiming there was no consensus (like you!), did his due diligence and now affirms there is a consensus.
zz1000zz wrote:Similarly, I know for a fact Richard Tol has never recanted like you claim. Given I knew your claim could not possibly apply to Tol, and given your own link makes it abundantly clear Tol is not a denier, I felt it was best not to assume you were calling Tol a denier.
Wait... so... He is not a denier, he affirms there is consensus, but he never recanted? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; that he was never a denier, or that he never recanted? But still agrees that there is a consensus? Because if you look at his wiki, you'll see quite clearly that he is/was a well known... wait for it... Yes that's it, AGW denier. There's literally a section of it on his wiki.
zz1000zz wrote:You haven't addressed a single point I've raised with anything other than hand waving, insults and blatant fabrications. You've shown you're willing to call anyone a denier, even if he explicitly agrees with the position you claim deniers deny. You claim to know my views on global warming, yet you couldn't possibly describe them to anyone. Finally, you claim, in contradiction to practically every scientist in the world, that there are not many different positions with varying degrees of consensus.

You're not just making things up. You're spouting off what might as well be the delusional ramblings of a street-corner wino.
I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this; you are someone who denies at the very very least, the fact that there is a scientific consensus among climate scientists. Is this incorrect? Do you accept that there is a consensus? Did you not click on the link that showed Richard Tol concuring with the fact that there is an over 97% consensus? Or did he not recant? Or... was he never a denier? Like you aren't?

Your positions on this are hardly consistant, which is why I've only called you a denier because of your refusal to recognize consensus. Which there is.
zz1000zz wrote:Seriously, what I said about the RCPs and the IPCC's position isn't remotely controversial. It's taken directly from the IPCC. If I could post links, I could show sources like RealClimate acknowledging it. Heck, even Skeptical Science, the source of the article you told me to look at, acknowledges the same point.
And seriously, I never said it was controversial or even incorrect. Take a look at my response, and try again.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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 12:03 pm UTC

*Kat* wrote:People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is.


What you don't know is not my problem, really.

Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.


No, that's incorrect. The changes expected in this century are far beyond anything seen since the invention of agriculture.

Cities can be rebuilt again and again. Example: Charleston, South Carolina. It was leveled by the Civil War (1864?), drowned by a hurricane (1868?), and flattened by an earthquake (1886). From the ashes it rose again. Similar stories can be told about Galveston, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans.


The fact that a city can be rebuilt does not mean that putting thousands of them under water is no big deal. Humans are not likely to be exterminated by climate change, but few people think that. It is the severe damage to civilization and human welfare which is the problem.
People who fear global warming fear losing land to the sea, but what about the land we will gain?


"People who fear global warming" is kind of a mouthful, don't you think? You can just call us "the scientifically literate." Your nonsense about the benefits of radically changing the climate has been refuted by the economists who have studied the issue. I suggest a Google search.

keithl wrote:Creative thinking will yield more wealth and more energy efficiency than all solar panels and windmills and electric cars combined, conspicuous consumption showpieces that badge the owner as hip and fashionable rather than financially prudent. The mix of technologies we use 20 or 50 or 100 years from now will not be vast iterations of fashionable "green" toys, but an extrapolation of "more with less", sybaritic luxuries produced cheaply at mass scale, earning big profits for the new industries producing them from almost zero material input.


That's not nice, keithl. The doctors say when you make my eyes roll that hard they may go permanently into spasm.

Techno-Pollyannism is a nice adolescent fantasy, but it is not a plan, unfortunately. If you want a better world through science, listen to what the scientists are saying now.

Scientists and engineers have both identified the problem with decades of lead time (before the worst effects) and proved technology that can transition our economies to vastly lower emissions. We simply have to chose to make use of them. Techno-Pollyannism holds that science should not only identify the problem and provide the solution, but implement the solution without any cost or effort on their own part, while they enjoy "sybaritic luxuries produced cheaply at mass scale" as you put it.

One of my favorite Munroe quotes is "You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas." Similarly, you'll never find a technological innovation that frees you from the burden of making a minimal effort to face reality.
"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"

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 12:16 pm UTC

*Kat* wrote:People who fear global warming fear losing land to the sea, but what about the land we will gain? There are large stretches of Earth where few people live because its too cold and too dry. Global warming will change that. Places that are now cold and dry will become warmer and wetter -- and more hospitable. We'll lose islands but gain lakes. There is a whole continent at the south pole inhabited by nothing but penguins and their predators that we can move onto.
It's worth pointing out that agriculture can't be done on just any 'ol stretch of land easily. There are many reasons the breadbasket of America is such successful farmland, not the least of which is because of the soil. Sure, Greenland may thaw which will allow agriculture, but much of the land that will be thawing and/or emerging will be poor for agriculture.

Not all land is equal, and this point that 'you'll lose some land, but gain others so it's a wash' is only being made out of ignorance of soil science.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby PeteP » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:21 pm UTC

RMc wrote:A thought experiment: think of the people you've really, really hated in your life. A bully on the schoolyard, an ex, an authority figure who treated you unfairly, even entire groups of people who (you believe) do things that you despise. Feel the crazed, animal hatred. :evil:

Got it? OK.

This is how AGW people feel about those who question AGW. They have no problem calling them deniers, bigots or assholes because...well, because they are deniers, bigots and assholes. And much, much worse.

To AGW people, global warming is as obvious as anything could be: everyone (who matters) agrees, and those who don't agree can easily be disposed of as idiots, frauds or on the take from oil companies. All of them. People who question AGW are actively trying to destroy the planet, period. They are the most stupid and evil people imaginable. AGW people feel as much, or more, hatred toward questioners than anyone you've ever hated in your entire life.

So, this is why AGW discussions quickly get nasty and crazy. It's a religion, and nobody likes being told that their god might not be quite so divine after all.

Ah the narratives. That reminds me of the times religious people try to define atheism as a religion. Good times.
(PS: I don't hate deniers. The ones who honestly believe that stuff I find a bit sad and annoying like people believing homeopathy, anti vaxxers, conspiracy theorists or other cranks are sad and annoying. Anti vaxxers are also harmful, but I don't hate them. The ones who are part of think tanks or other groups engaging in lobby work who are probably often aware that their position is bogus I don't hate either. I view them kinda like hmm corrupt politicians, unpleasant but I can understand why they are doing what they are doing.
What I however do detest are the style of argumentation which reminds me of arguing with creationists and similar groups. The content is different but you recognize the patterns and I have long gotten sick of these patterns which is why I don't take part in this discussion.)

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 12:39 pm UTC

Yeah, it's not a hatred at all. Specific hateful people, sometimes, but in the mass, deniers mostly fill me with pity.

You have to realize that climate deniers are very obviously wrong, and very resistant (often completely so) to being educated about how they're wrong. So people get a little brusque with them as they Gish gallop their way across our screens. To see what hatred looks like, check out some of the actual letters written by climate deniers to scientists working in the field:

Climate campaigners have also noticed a surge in the frequency and virulence of this new form of cyber-bullying. The following was received by a young woman (who asked that her name not be used):

"Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?
"Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you."

Another campaigner opened her inbox to read this:

"F**k off!!!

"Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!

"F**k you little pieces of sh*t, show youselves in public!!!"


That's what hatred looks like. The mild annoyance you face from the people whose time you are wasting is a different thing.
"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"

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
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 12:41 pm UTC

*Kat* wrote:People talk about Global Warming like its going to be the end of the world. But I don't know that it is. Humans are resilient and the human race has survived climate changes in the past with far fewer resources than what we now have at our disposal.

Cities can be rebuilt again and again. Example: Charleston, South Carolina. It was leveled by the Civil War (1864?), drowned by a hurricane (1868?), and flattened by an earthquake (1886). From the ashes it rose again. Similar stories can be told about Galveston, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans.

Yes, humanity will survive. I don't think anyone in this discussion believes this will be an extinction-level event.

But just because we *can* rebuild cities doesn't mean we should let them be destroyed in the first place. You and your ilk can continue masturbating furiously all over libertarianism, but the grown-ups in the room would like to prevent millions of deaths and billions of displacements if at all possible.
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)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheMinim and 16 guests