[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 103 KB, 620x349, 1387413474348.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6235524 No.6235524 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-our-rails-cant-cope-with-the-heat-20131218-2zl3t.html
>Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University in Western Australia, said extremely hot days would become more frequent in Melbourne due to climate change, and the city needed to modernise its rail network to cope. Doing so was not complex, it just required investment, said Professor Newman, who is also on the advisory board of Infrastructure Australia.
>extremely hot days would become more frequent in Melbourne due to climate change, and the city needed to modernise its rail network to cope.
>extremely hot days would become more frequent in Melbourne due to climate change

>> No.6235529

So what?

>> No.6235533

Your point it?

>> No.6235534

>>6235529
so climate change is presenting major infrastructure problems

>> No.6235535

>>6235533
>>extremely hot days would become more frequent in Melbourne due to climate change

>> No.6235538

>>6235534
Clearly it will provide much larger infrastructure problems than that in the future. Look at the Maldives...it's costing them millions.

>> No.6235540

>>6235524
Uh, OK? That's kind of the point of climate change, yeah.

>> No.6235549

Climate change will likely kill us all, whether or not it disables our trains first.

>> No.6235564

I think the point is that the professor is getting big payoffs from infrastructure projects since he's on the board of Infrastructure Australia, and is using his authority as a prof. to funnel more money into infrastructure development.

It's a conflict of interests facilitated by the climate change hoax

>> No.6235571

>>6235564
how do you account then for there being more days with temperatures over 40 degrees? and Melbournes elderly railways being unable to handle this?

>> No.6235582

>>6235564
>the climate change hoax

>>>/b/

>> No.6235606

>>6235564
winner

1/2 a degree over the next 100 years... it's the end times people!

>> No.6235615

That's fucking retarded.
Climate change is never claimed (by reputable sources) to increase temperatures by much more than half a degree each 50 years.

>> No.6235647

>>6235615
>more days over 40 degrees

>> No.6235656

>>6235606
You retard.

Where you live, has it been .005 degrees warmer than last year? No? Good lob idiot.

Climate change is causing the standard temperature to fluctuate. Here in the midwest, we've had a december about as cold as january. This doesn't mean global warming isn't real, it just means its GLOBAL and manifests itself different everywhere.

Melbourne may be having hotter summers lately. Suck it homo.

>> No.6235664

>>6235606
>>6235615
>global averages are the same thing as weather

>> No.6235674

>>6235656

n=1. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "climate science."

>> No.6235676

>>6235647
In adelaide we've been getting > 40 degree weather every summer for the last... million years.
Confirmation bias pls go

>> No.6235693

How come /sci/ is suddenly turned into global warming denial central? Is it because we were already center to begin with, and when super right wingers from /pol/ flooded in we started not believing climate research because liberals believe it? Or did some recent research cast doubt on the established view that climate change is real?

>> No.6235697

>>6235676
are you illiterate?
>more days over
>more
>MORE
this means there are a percentage of days over 40 degrees
and this percentage will increase

>> No.6235703

>>6235697
But if anything summer is getting cooler on average in Aus.
Insanity pls go.

>> No.6235706
File: 34 KB, 500x363, 1387420607564.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6235706

>>6235703
>summer is getting cooler on average in Aus
the heat waves of a few years ago?
things are unseasonably cool at the moment but thats pretty easily explained when you look at the trends in the rising weather for it to cycle between rises and brief dips

>> No.6235709

>>6235706
So what you're saying is that heat waves = climate change.
And lack of heat waves = climate change.

>> No.6235732

>>6235709
if you look at the trends of the graphs of the rising temperatures you will see it rises for a while, then levels of or dips briefly, then resumes rising, and etc

>> No.6235747

>>6235564
bring on the tinfoil hats

>> No.6235749

>>6235564
>Infrastructure Australia is a statutory authority of the federal government. Its role is to plan and co-ordinate infrastructure projects across Australia, particularly where the works cross state borders, and to establish funding priorities free from the targeting of marginal seats.
Infrastructure Australia is anti-corruption and bias

>> No.6235752

>>6235693
>How come /sci/ is suddenly turned into global warming denial central?
Most of /sci/ never believed it in the first place. The leaked emails about it never helped any either.

>> No.6235755

>>6235564
>>6235749
>As of 2012, projects identified as "ready to proceed" are:[4]
>Brisbane Cross River Rail
>Melbourne Metro: Stage 1
>Monash Freeway 33km road upgrades from High St to Clyde Rd (VIC)
>Pacific Highway 300km corridor upgrades (NSW)
>National Broadband Network
2 rail projects
2 road projects
and internet
However, with the change in government the new Liberal Party of Prime Minister Tony Abbott is trashing all Federal grants for railways and is focusing on roads
State Liberals are doing the same
Roads, roads, roads
Now, what were you saying about conflicts of interests and mates rates?

>> No.6235759

>>6235752
>willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting what emails said
oh you

>> No.6235761

Whats more likely?
A) a 16 billion+ dollar industry is seeking to protect its profits and market share and share prices - all perfectly normal business practices - and is using the right wing think tanks it is long associated with to orchestrate a gigantic PR campaign and getting the politicians they donate heavily to to block any meaningful action?
B) scientists are perpetuating a conspiracy unprecedented in history that violates all the rules and procedures science operates under and runs contrary to inquisitive questioning nature of science, all so they can get some grant money and apparently also raise taxes and initiate the NWO

>> No.6235768
File: 37 KB, 320x320, why+not+both`+_77efcab1b9d964f511f109ed9021a047.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6235768

>>6235761

>> No.6235773

>>6235761
How is the climate conspiracy being perpetuated?

It has been going for many years now. What if some uninitiated but brilliant PhD student, while writing his thesis, stumbles on evidence of the conspiracy? Do they pay him off?

>> No.6235780

>>6235773
according to the deniers he gets bribed, scientists all being interested in their own gain, or silenced and drummed out of academia

>> No.6235782

>>6235780
>getting bribed to do science
I wish I was a climate scientist...

>> No.6235783

>>6235773
THE YOUNG GUNS OF SCIENCE

We cannot say too often that, just because nearly all of experts are in consensus, their paradigm might still turn out to be wrong. Still, the Skeptic admits this is rare in science history. Moreover, a steep burden of proof falls on those who claim that 100% of experts are wrong. That burden is a moral, as well as intellectual geas.

The Denier, in contrast, cares little about the history of science, and especially has no understanding of how the Young Guns in any scientific field... the post-docs and recently-tenured junior professors... are always on the lookout for chinks and holes in the current paradigm, where they can go to topple Nobel laureates and make a rep for themselves, in a manner much like Billy the Kid. (Try looking into the history of weather modeling, and see just how tough these guys really are.)

This is a crucial point. For the core Denier narrative is that every single young atmospheric scientist is a corrupt or gelded coward. Not a few, or some, or even most... but every last one of them. Only that can explain why none of them have "come out." Especially given that Exxon and Fox News offer lavish rewards for any that do.

One Denier narrative claims that the experts are corrupted by "millions pouring into green technologies"... without showing how a space probe researcher, studying Venus at JPL, profits from a contract going to a windmill manufacturer in Copenhagen. But we'll return to conspiracy theories in a bit.

>> No.6235784

>>6235783
No, I am not proclaiming that all young scientists are noble, brave, insightful and incorruptible. On average, most scientists are propelled by adventure, curiosity and macho-competitive guts, but I've known plenty who weren't. Nevertheless, after working with folks in dozens of scientific fields, I know that the best of the Young Guns have the knowledge, tools and ambition to start screaming when they spot "holes in the consensus." If all the post-docs and junior-tenureds in atmospheric studies have timidly laid down - and this has also silenced experts in related fields like meteorology -- then this is the first time it happened in any large scale field of science. Their acceptance of the AGW model means something.

Still, one is drawn to imagine why a Denier can imagine that all the Young Guns are either cowed by authority figures or suborned by greed for measly five figure grants... perhaps because that is the way things work in the Denier's own field. It is a natural human mistake, to assume that others are like yourself. Nevertheless, it remains a mistake.

The Skeptic takes the absence of Young Gun dissenters into account, adding it to the burden of proof borne by the other side.

>> No.6235791

So I have tried to educate myself on climate change. 1/2 of the "peer reviewed" journals say that climate change is due to solar activity and a much more significant rise in CO2 than humans produce. The other half say climate change is leading the additional CO2 release from the oceans, further compounding the issue.

Does anyone have some solid information on this? People make me feel like a Fox News drone for saying I have my questions, and I'd like more information than I have been able to locate on my own.

Anyone with more experience on the topic have some sources they could share?

>> No.6235793

>>6235564
>the climate change hoax

>>>/pol/

>> No.6235800

>>6235564
>since he's on the board of Infrastructure Australia
Or maybe he's on the board because he's an expert on infrastructure and this is an infrastructure related matter.

>> No.6235808
File: 53 KB, 546x599, 1387425448007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6235808

>>6235791
there is no such divide stop lying

and the ocean absorbs half the CO2 emitted
think about that
can it just increasing in acidity forever? does that have no effect on any life in it? can coral reefs survive that? can krill and plankton form their shells in highly acidic waters? does this have no effect on deep ocean currents?

>> No.6235823

>>6235800
how can he be an expert for climate AND infrastructure the same time?

>> No.6235829

>>6235808
I'm not denying to try to stir up shit, I honestly would like clarification. But your answer doesn't really... ya know... answer me. I also know the ocean emits nearly as much as it absorbs. I don't KNOW what that means, but I'd love some study that explained it to me, hint hint

>> No.6235837

>>6235829
And to add to that, I'm not saying one side is right. But you've obviously never googled "climate change" if you think people aren't presenting both sides of the argument as peer reviewed fact.

>> No.6235846

>>6235823
as an expert in infrastructure he would know that sustained periods of operation at high temperatures would be detrimental

>> No.6235868

>>6235808
>krill and plankton form their shells in highly acidic waters
Man, I fucking hate those pussy planktons and corals. Just a tiny %% increase of pH, and they all just up and die. How about you stop bitching and start evolving, faggots? It's free pH, you don't even gotta work them proton pumps so hard anymore! Get with the program, Christ.

Look at bacteria - so much better. You ever hear a bacteria whine about MUH EXTINCTION? Hell no, these sick cunts just adapt the fuck out of whatever you throw at em.

>> No.6235884

>>6235791
>1/2 of the "peer reviewed" journals say that climate change is due to solar activity and a much more significant rise in CO2 than humans produce

No, they don't. Research has shown that climate change is occurring, and is most likely anthropogenic. Solar forcing may play some role in that, but it is not the dominant role. There has been no increased output of 'natural' CO2. I don't really understand why this is so hard for people to understand - the greenhouse effect is a fairly well-understood phenomena. In my opinion, it would be weird if we weren't experiencing any warming.
Some sources:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

>> No.6235892

>>6235868
well when they die
what happens to everything that eats them
cause the stuff we tend to eat

>> No.6235897

>>6235884
Its hard for people to understand because, regardless of motivation, there is a lot of loud opposition from both sides, and the majority is not constructive.

The final source you listed was especially compelling. Its a bummer that a lot of weather/solar records only go back like 50 years, that's basically a blip in the weather cycles of earth. But still, I feel much more convinced the cause is man made.

Thank you for the references

>> No.6235899

>>6235897
>opposition from both sides
you see how meaningful and constructive this post is
taking the middle ground
pointing there are problems on both sides
and we'll just have to wait and see and sort it out later
yeah
no
this is PR 101

>> No.6235907

>>6235899
Well it was because this is excellent data that suggests that humans play a large part in our current climate change. Its not proof, but asking for proof would be like me asking for proof of evolution. You can point to excellent supporting data, but its too complex for there to be a single set of numbers you can point to and call it definitive proof.

And if you pretend otherwise, it just makes you part of the noise that drowns out good information the the stuff linked