/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3302710]

Climate change skeptics are always wrong

[Anonymous No.3302718]

>>3302710

[Anonymous No.3302725]

>>3302718

OP sauce is now lost, but it originally appeared on WUWT

Sauce for previous post:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html

Current post:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

[Anonymous No.3302727]

industrial co2 levels will cause a Venusian climate, i heard it on the telly.

ignore that prehistoric co2 levels have been twenty times higher than they are today.

[Anonymous No.3302731]

>>3302725

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

[Anonymous No.3302741]

>>3302731

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/skeptics-real-or-fake/

[Anonymous No.3302745]

>>3302741

Some skeptics are so wrong that I won't bother digging up the source for this spectacular piece of retardation

[Anonymous No.3302751]

>>3302745

lol sockpuppets

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/02/montana-to-repeal-global-warming.html

[Anonymous No.3302760]

>>3302727

>industrial co2 levels will cause a Venusian climate, i heard it on the telly.

lol no you didn't

>ignore that prehistoric co2 levels have been twenty times higher than they are today.

Global temperatures were also 60+ degrees Celsius higher than today, but that doesn't mean we would like it

[Anonymous No.3302770]

ITT: dumbasses conflate 'earth's temperature has risen for a century' with 'earth's temperature has risen for a century because of mankind and we need to do something to stop it'.

[Anonymous No.3302779]

>>3302751

Why can't skeptics do anything right? At least their political activities are going smoothly

[Anonymous No.3302795]

>>3302760

when the fuck are you talking about? co2 was higher in the past, the earth was way too hot for humans at some unspecified point in the past, hence high co2 will mean it's too hot for humans. this is the kind of dipshit logic i've come to expect from morons like you.

co2 was 15 times higher than pre-industry in the ordovician and 2 DEGREES HOTTER YOU GIGANTIC FAG.

[Anonymous No.3302816]

Whatever effect the rise of CO2 has on the climate, it's wrecking our oceans for sure.
No more fish for us, unless you like jellyfish.

[Anonymous No.3302817]

>>3302770

Somehow skeptics try to argue against both at the same time

Example:

Earth's temperature record cannot be trusted because the notion of a "average surface global temperature" is fraudulent in the first place! We can't trust those devious scientists and their conspiracy to manipulate thermometer locations. Global warming isn't happening.

vs.

Look how those amazing scientists have accurately measured the surface temperature of Mars! By calculating the trend between these two data points, we know that Mars is warming. Since global warming is happening on both Earth AND Mars, the Sun is causing it!

[Anonymous No.3302830]

unless you have at least a bachelor's in geology, you should probably stop talking about climate change and instead defer to people who do.

[Anonymous No.3302831]

>>3302795

Dude, it's your own logic

>CO2 levels used to be extremely high hundreds of millions of years ago when there were no humans

>therefore extremely high CO2 levels are no problem at all for humans

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302841]

>>3302710
OP Failed his first troll, and is now polishing his skills.

>>3302407

[Anonymous No.3302844]

>>3302816

Bad news:

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf

[Anonymous No.3302845]

>>3302795
and what kind of life was supported in the ordovician?
the issue isn't the whether or not the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is the same as in the past historically, it's the rate at which the concentration of co2 is increasing.

[Anonymous No.3302846]

>>3302831
i never mentioned humans bro, i was just shooting down the lunatic idea that our current levels could cause some kind of apocalypse.

current levels are not extremely high. they are like a tenth of what they were when the planet was 2 deg hotter.

humans may have trouble adjusting because we're tiny and rage about tiny changes, but it isn't an ecological catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.3302854]

>mfw multiple studies of birds show large-scale and elevation level changes in migration that can only be attributed to a climate that has already changed to being warmer on average per year making all skeptics sound incredibly stupid and ignorant

[Anonymous No.3302857]

>>3302854
>omg some birds died

[Anonymous No.3302859]

>>3302841

Nah, I wasn't the OP of that thread

I'm just sick of the shit that climate change skeptics keep pushing, and I would like /sci/ to share my consternation

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3302867]

>>3302710 skeptics

You mean denialists. A skeptic is someone who demands to be given evidence. A denialist is someone who hides from it.

[Anonymous No.3302868]

>>3302857
>not at all what I was saying
>birds are specific about habitats they nest in, they are migrating farther north and farther up mountains due to temperature rising you fucking faggot
>you gb2 UFOs and alien and astrology worship, stay away from something actually scientific

[Anonymous No.3302875]

>>3302857
>>3302857
>not at all what I was saying
>birds are specific about habitats they nest in, they are migrating farther north and farther up mountains due to temperature rising you fucking faggot
>you gb2 UFOs and alien and astrology worship, stay away from something actually scientific

[Anonymous No.3302877]

HEY GUYS WHAT IF CLIMATE CHANGE ISNT HAPPENING??!!? (even though we can prove it is)
LETS PRETEND IT ISNT. THEN WE'LL HAVE CHANGED TO RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND STOPPED POLLUTING OUR AIR FOR NOTHING!?! HOW TERRIBLE IF WE MADE THE WORLD BETTER FOR NOTHING! DAMN SCIENTISTS LYING AND GETTING ME PISSED

[Anonymous No.3302879]

>>3302857

Can you not read? The guy you quoted was talking about studies of bird habitat ranges shifting polewards and upwards, which provides biological evidence of global warming. Nothing about birds dying.

[Anonymous No.3302890]

>>3302867

But a denialist can also ask for endlessly ask for evidence

Witness the creationist who won't be satisfied until every gap in the fossil record is filled and then some

[Anonymous No.3302894]

>>3302877
>Spend trillions on replacing our entire energy infrastructure with more expensive alternatives
>make the world better

Choose one.

[Anonymous No.3302896]

I could be wrong but once climate gets hot enough wont it warm the oceans enough to trigger methane release or something?

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302899]

>>3302894
>Generate jobs
>Let poor people die poor

Choose one

[Anonymous No.3302900]

Have the denialists here seen Walking with Dinosaurs?

They touched on some of the issues of high carbon dioxide Jurassic climate. No ice caps and devastating fires, hurricanes etc.

And that was when the sun was weaker; the output has increased over the millions of years.

One massive consequence of climate change is that the hadley cells which convey air from the equator to the horse latitudes (tropic of cancer and capricorn) will expand.

The deserts of the world are going to shift, possibly into areas people have been using as farmland, living space or to draw water from. And it's going to happen fast, so gradual adaptation isn't an option like it normally is in a climate shift.

[Anonymous No.3302906]

>>3302894

>still using money by 2013
I seriously hope the world doesnt do this

also on a more pertinent note

>implying our infrastructure isnt breaking down and in need of repair/replacement
>implying we wont save money in the long run due to it being renewable and the rising price of gas
>implying it wont make us energy independent
>implying it wont stop money being funneled to islamic extremist countries that hate us
>implying you have any idea what you're talking about
>implying

[Anonymous No.3302907]

>>3302890

Aha! But when the evilutionist finds a transitional fossil, there is no longer one gap, but TWO gaps!

Their every move makes god's victory more complete.

[Anonymous No.3302904]

>>3302877
>against nuclear
confirmed for retardation

[Anonymous No.3302911]

>>3302899
>Generate jobs

You're not very good at this whole "choose one" argument meme.

[Anonymous No.3302912]

>>3302896
are you referring to permafrost and methane release?

[Anonymous No.3302918]

>>3302904

>implying nuclear power is completely safe

nope.jpg

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302922]

>>3302904
>pro unproven large scale technology

I'd also like a magic wand while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.3302923]

>>3302918
>implying nuclear isn't the safest
nope.jpg.avi

[Anonymous No.3302924]

>>3302912

yes is that true or disproven?

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302928]

>>3302911
I see. I'd try to simplify it for you but you've shown you're as simple as they get.

[Anonymous No.3302932]

>>3302923

no its not the safest in terms of its ability to cause widespread extremely deadly problems
no its not safer than solar panels
no its not safer than geothermal
no its not safer than hydroelectric
no its not safer than wind power
no its not the safest.

[Anonymous No.3302934]

>>3302922
>Implying thorium energy is unproven

[Anonymous No.3302936]

>>3302845

um... no it isn't?

why do i constantly hear that yet never hear it explained. it's wishy washy BS. the greenhouse effect is proportional to the amount of co2 in the atmosphere, not the rate it's rising. i challenge you to explain your assertion.

[Anonymous No.3302941]

>>3302932
http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/24/nuclear-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-opposition-is-a-glaring-deni
al-of-reality/

[Anonymous No.3302939]

the best part is, when people talk about how the earth goes through natural cycles, they dont realize it should, based on our position in space and the calculated energy output of the sun that gets to earth, be cooling. but instead its getting warmer

[Anonymous No.3302945]

>>3302906
>>implying our infrastructure isnt breaking down and in need of repair/replacement
You think every single coal, gas, and nuclear power plant in the world is "breaking down"? Um, I guess if they were that'd be a good case to rebuild everything ever. But they're not.

>implying we wont save money in the long run due to it being renewable and the rising price of gas
Renewables are still more expensive than non-renewables. If you want to switch to renewables once they become cheaper, that's fine. But that's not the case today. And using something more expensive does not save money.

>Racism and Islam
Cool biggotry bro.

[Anonymous No.3302946]

>>3302924
not positive. i know permafrost can store it, can't speak to ocean temps leading to its release, but seems very plausible. one of my professors was dealing with it off the northern coast of canuckistan (methane that is, i believe it was on the ocean floor).
i only skimmed the wiki super fast, but seems accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

[Anonymous No.3302951]

>>3302894

Protip: with policy actions, and can choose to REVERSE bad policies if we don't want them

Let's assume the supremely unlikely case that all the scientists really are wrong, and there is no global warming. Well great, we can cancel all those useless regulations and taxes and whatnot. We will probably appreciate it anyway because we're running up against peak oil, but whatever. Maybe peak oil was fake too. Nothing stops us from turning back on a bad decision.

What if we choose to ignore global warming, and it turns out global warming is real? We know from the paleoclimate record that whatever changes we make now to the Earth's atmosphere, those changes will persist for thousands of years. From our perspective, it is irreversible.

[Anonymous No.3302954]

>>3302939
>>implying earth's atmosphere is not a chaotic system

[Anonymous No.3302955]

>>3302941

I could say nuclear bombs are safer than real bombs because they've caused less deaths in the past.

you can manipulate statistics and graphs to mislead anyone you want. The fact is the potential threat of the nuclear power plants, a nuclear melt down, is too great of a threat to allow.

They also produce nuclear waste that is potentially dangerous.

I also question the validity of the statistics presented, as well as the small sample sizes that must exist for some of the things hes comparing, as well as how far back he is getting his data, nuclear being relatively new.

[Anonymous No.3302960]

>>3302936
lmao. okay, in the past the rate that co2 has gone into the atmosphere has either been steady, or been sudden. when it's sudden, species don't have time to adapt and there's lots of extinctions. so let's clarify that - when atmospheric chemistry changes rapidly, life goes extinct.
when atmospheric chemistry changes slowly, life adapts to the changes.
and again, what kind of life was supported in the ordovician? fairly positive it was pretty much 100% aquatic at that time, so saying that concentrations were similar is irrelevant to terrestrial species.

[Anonymous No.3302962]

>>3302928
>can't even use a meme properly
>say simple as an insult

isn't summer great

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302964]

>>3302934
>implying theres a large full scale reactor somewhere with a track record of safety

[Anonymous No.3302965]

>>3302954

"Chaos" doesn't mean "totally unpredictable"

Declining solar irradiance, our current phase in the Milankovitch cycles, and moderate volcanic activity mean that if we consider natural factors alone, the Earth should be gradually cooling, regardless of small zig-zags in interannual temperature.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302970]

>>3302962
>doesn't understand something
>blame time of year.

[Anonymous No.3302977]

>>3302970
>doesn't know what summer is on 4chan

[Anonymous No.3302979]

>>3302964
>implying there wasn't an actual reactor

[Anonymous No.3302991]

>>3302934

Here's the facts:

1. Uranium prices are super cheap. There is no economic incentive to move away from uranium and towards thorium.

2. The construction of nuclear plants themselves is extremely expensive and prone to delays and cost overruns. The price of construction tends to increase over time, even as uranium prices are stable. Thus the nuclear industry requires massive government subsidies to stay afloat, and nowadays very few private investors are willing to take the risk.

3. It takes about 30 years for any new energy technology, whether it's coal, oil, wind, solar, or nuclear, to achieve 1% market penetration after first commercial operation. There is no reason to think that thorium won't be the same.

Yes, thorium sounds fantastic on paper, but doesn't everything? I do think it will play an important role in future energy and therefore we should devote a fair amount of R&D to it. But it will arrive too late, and be too unpalatable to taxpayers, to be the main part of the solution in the next few decades.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3303000]

>>3302977
>Isn't quite understanding how truly simple he is.

[Anonymous No.3303001]

>>3302991
>1. Uranium prices are super cheap. There is no economic incentive to move away from uranium and towards thorium.
Thorium is MUCH cheaper than uranium

[Anonymous No.3303031]

>>3302906
You REALLY don't think that investments in infrastructure aren't considered across the life span of the project? I'm not saying that green technologies haven't made tons of practice in recent years for the record.
On a side note, you guys that are so against burning fossil fuels are crazy out of touch with the world. The US is nothing compared to the pollution that Brazil, China, and India are going to put out in the next years.

[Anonymous No.3303029]

>>3303001

Thorium is $33/kg according to Wolfram Alpha

Uranium is $11/kg according to UX

Thorium does have one cost advantage over uranium, and that's that a commercial plant wouldn't have to worry about fission plants' horrendous insurance premiums due to nuclear waste. But that's the only advantage I can think of.

[Anonymous No.3303056]

>>3303000
>fuck up a simple meme
>claim that no one else understands

[Anonymous No.3303072]

>>3302991
>. The construction of nuclear plants themselves is extremely expensive and prone to delays and cost overruns. The price of construction tends to increase over time, even as uranium prices are stable. Thus the nuclear industry requires massive government subsidies to stay afloat, and nowadays very few private investors are willing to take the risk.
Which is true for Uranium Reactors but not for Thorium Reactors.

Thorium reactors can be be made as small as a truck at $250,000 keeping about a thousand people with energy for the rest of its life.

Hell a Thorium reactor could easily be a 1/3 of the initial expense of a Uranium Reactor for the same amount of energy and far less upkeep cost. Cheaper than the initial costs of a coal factory.

[Anonymous No.3303081]

>>3303031

In terms of smog and shit, then China has US beat. Not India or Brazil though. Brazil in particular produces a fair proportion of their vehicle fuel from ethanol, and unlike the US they can do this somewhat sustainably.

China has very recently exceeded the US in total CO2 emissions, but the US is still by far and away the largest per capita emitter of those four. The US also takes the lion's share of cumulative CO2 emissions, which is what matters considering how long-lived CO2 emissions are in the atmosphere.

Given the rate that China is opening new coal plants (1 per week), this will probably change in the next few decades.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3303095]

>>3303056
>fail to understand choices and consequence
>Thinks he's smart that way

[Anonymous No.3303102]

>>3303029
Keep in mind only 1-3% of the Uranium is useful. Most of the stuff

While 99% of the Thorium is useful.

[снайпер No.3303113]

>>3302955
>I could say nuclear bombs are safer than real bombs because they've caused less deaths in the past.

We haven't experienced total war since the invention of nuclear weapons and the end of the second world war. Nobody wants to use nuclear weapons because it means mutually assured destruction. The issue with your analogy is that you assume nuclear power plants will cause devastation grossly in excess of what anything else could do - hence jumping to nuclear weapons vs. conventional weapons.

What you fail to grasp is that nuclear power *IS NOT* as devastating as other forms of power generation. Oil alone has done untold damage politically and economically in the world, nevermind the land and oceans that have been destroyed and polluted, and the contributions towards global warming.

Coal power creates desolate wastelands and dumps of toxic chemicals, in addition to releasing a great deal of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere under normal operation, AND causing significantly more deaths than nuclear has ever caused.

Even Hydroelectric is worse than nuclear - the dams we build turn hundreds of square kilometers into man-made lakes, and hydro has caused the greatest number of deaths of all forms of power generation thanks to some rare but extremely messy accidents.

You have to be willingly ignorant to believe that nuclear is not safer and more efficient than all the other alternatives.

[Anonymous No.3303116]

>>3303072

You need to explain how you came up with those numbers. Just the generator of any large power plant would cost well over $250,000.

There's also the matter of the 30-year-to-1%-market penetration of new energy technologies, which barring massive government intervention verging on Stalinization, is unlikely to be much faster for Thorium. The problems we're facing require off-the-shelf technologies that are commercially available now or in the near future, not ones that are 30 years away.

[Anonymous No.3303119]

>>3302710
>graph of something
>unlabeled axes
>no title
>no substance to OP

i don't care what you're arguing for, you're doing it wrong

[Anonymous No.3303122]

>>3303095
>nooooo you don't understand
>implying I (or anyone) mentioned "smart that way"

[Anonymous No.3303128]

>>3302918
>Implying anything is completely safe
HAHAHAHA
No.

[Anonymous No.3303158]

>>3303102

The market value of uranium and thorium reflects the cost of the usable product, not unprocessed ore

>>3303113

Hydro I think has gotten an unfairly bad rap. Yes, it causes tons of ecological damage and floods valuable land, but there are important benefits that usually people don't consider, like irrigation and flood control.

Do you have the source for the death numbers? I remember seeing something about hydro killing the most people and it seemed ridiculously high.

[Anonymous No.3303185]

>>3303119

That's actually the whole point. I'm arguing that the guy responsible for that graph is an idiot. Archibald predicted massive cooling in 2009, but it turned out to be one of the hottest years on record globally.

I found the original source:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197

X-axis is years. The dataset used is UAH. The Y-axis scale is degrees Celsius anomaly. I don't know what the baseline 0.0 is.

[снайпер No.3303211]

>>3303158
There were a series of dam failures in China that resulted in about 170,000 - 230,000 deaths. ~26,000 of which were directly from the dam breakage. [The rest were from famine and disease as a result]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3303216]

>>3303122
>trying to imply himself out of a hole

[Anonymous No.3303235]

>>3303216
I'm sorry, I guess I must really have said I was "smart that way" as you claim.

Why don't you link the post where I did so that everyone can see how I was "trying to imply himself out of a hole".

There is such a post, right? :)

[Anonymous No.3303242]

>>3303211

Wow a dam built in 1950s China

No wonder

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3303246]

>>3303235
I forgot what this was about. I think i've implied myself into not caring. I apologize internet man.

[Anonymous No.3303334]

>>3302951
> He thinks the people's "like" of policy determines policy, lmao.

Yeah man my bad I forgot everyone "likes" the Patriot Act that they keep re-enacting to maintain emergency powers lmao.

[Anonymous No.3303345]

>>3303242
>Wow, a nuclear power plant built in 1970's Russia

>No wonder

[Anonymous No.3304841]

Bamp

>>3303334

The PATRIOT Act was easy to pass and maintain because TERRISM and most Americans don't view themselves as affected by it, so they don't give a fuck

Climate legislation is pretty much the opposite of the PATRIOT Act. It is incredibly easy to turn people against it. Just take a look at this thread: every single argument brought up has been debunked thousands of times, often discredited decades ago, yet people still want desperately for global warming not to be true. They couldn't even get Republicans in Congress to acknowledge that global warming exists for Christ's sake, and in a number of state legislatures they've actually tried to pass laws that explicitly deny that global warming is real.

Let's say some dumbass occupies the White House and tries undemocratically push through climate legislation. How long to you think he's got before he's impeached?