Discuss.

File: 95 KB, 664x476, 4_5_degrees.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 05:45:58 2014 No.6633708 [Reply] [Original]

Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:00:25 2014 No.6633716 id love me some palm trees. Firs and spruces suck

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:00:40 2014 No.6633717 >>6633708 >XKCD Get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:04:23 2014 No.6633718 >>6633717 they have some pretty got scientific content >>>/pol/ faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:04:55 2014 No.6633719 >>6633717 >I'm too euphoric to enjoy anything related to entertainment

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:07:56 2014 No.6633721 >>6633718 >linking to /pol/ This isn't /r/science

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:16:30 2014 No.6633724 >>6633721 >muh reddit >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:20:40 2014 No.6633728 >in 86 years >implying I'm gonna live that long

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:27:15 2014 No.6633733 >>6633724 >shitposting >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:28:38 2014 No.6633738 >>6633733 >being this buttflustered >>>/pol/ Also climate change is a scientific fact polard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:46:59 2014 No.6633751 >implying the Rapture isn't happening in the next 10 years anyway >implying the "ice age" isn't jew propaganda

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 06:49:57 2014 No.6633753 >>6633717 If you have some substantial criticism to make of the claim presented, I'm all ears. Otherwise, this is an actual instance of ad hominem fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:05:32 2014 No.6633761 >>6633717 this

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:13:17 2014 No.6633763 >>6633761 samefag

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:14:44 2014 No.6633764

>summer all year long
>only need shorts and t-shirts, no expensive winter clothing anymore
>don't need to waste money on heating my house anymore
>never have to scrape my windshield again
>can go on beach vacation in antarctica and party with the penguins

Tell me again why global warming is a bad thing?

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:17:28 2014 No.6633769

>>6633753
If anything doesn't this cartoon show how vital it is that we keep our earth warm. I mean call me an idiot but If I have to choose between beaches and warm antarctic vacation and 1/2 a mile of ice. i think i know the choice.

I mean sea level rise is not so bad we will have floating cities underwater habitation pods and cyborg dolphin sex slaves

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:18:12 2014 No.6633770 It's so embarrassing to remember that I used to find xkcd funny when I was a teenager. Why was I such a pleb?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:27:25 2014 No.6633780 >without prompt, aggressive limits on co2 emissions With prompt, aggressive limits it will be the same. You know, reducing our emissions only means adding less co2. It doesn't mean taking away the co2 we blew in the atmosphere over the last 200 years.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:27:56 2014 No.6633781 >>6633753 9C degree rise will put palm trees at the poles. That is interesting since the average temperature there is -12.3C I was unaware palm trees would grow at - Celsius tempertures

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:30:47 2014 No.6633785 >>6633780 Trees exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:41:45 2014 No.6633803 >>6633769 Finally someone gets it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 07:44:35 2014 No.6633807

>>6633785
Do you know how trees work? They don't just eat up CO2 and shit out fairy dust all day long. The only way that a plant can absorb CO2 is by absorbing it into its physical structure. That means that plants only absorb it when they grow, not by just sitting there. Since we're smashing down the Amazon 1000x faster than we're planting new trees, trees ain't gonna do shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:17:35 2014 No.6633853 >>6633770 You're going to be more embarrassed about how you think you're 2cool4school now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:25:52 2014 No.6633864 >>6633764 >don't need to waste money on heating my house anymore Air conditioning uses substantially more energy than heating during winter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:26:10 2014 No.6633865 >>6633764 How about it'll displace several billion people and make a fuck load of resources unacceptable. What do you think the consequences will be when there are 9 billion people and 5 of those are looking for a new home and food for the day?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:28:06 2014 No.6633868 >>6633865 Unacceptable -> unaccessible

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:28:54 2014 No.6633871 >>6633764 This might blow your mind, but there are actually places RIGHT NOW where you never have to scrape your windshield! Why don't you live there?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:36:04 2014 No.6633879 >>6633708 >4-5 degrees IPCC median estimate is something like 3-4 degrees. Confidence intervals are hella wide though (which is actually the most scary part).

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:38:00 2014 No.6633881

>>6633865
5 people out of 9 billions are looking for a home and food? Sounds realistic, considering that living outside won't be a problem anymore when it's warm, and with higher temperatures tropical fruits will be growing everywhere, so being homeless isn't a problem anymore.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:42:06 2014 No.6633889 >>6633881 Most people live near the coastline, so yes most people will be displaced. Of course it won't happen at the same time for everyone. Also do you really think most people will accept being homeless with no food?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:42:19 2014 No.6633890 >>6633881 So people in the tropics live in some kind of Eden where they don't need food or shelter? I didn't know that. Fuck, I should move to Central America.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:44:45 2014 No.6633894 >>6633889 Did you miss the part where food is growing on trees? >>6633890 Yeah, why else do you think they never had to invent agriculture over there? Because they always had all the food they needed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:47:46 2014 No.6633898 >>6633871 because the sunlight shines directly and gives me a sunburn

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:49:49 2014 No.6633903

>>6633894
You really are rationalizing this as as much as you can.

There sure as fuck won't be enough food for everyone, and people will be chopping down the forest like they are doing it Brazil.

Also there will be a lot more extreme weather, I sure as fuck don't want be outside during a tropical storm.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:49:56 2014 No.6633904 >>6633889 Sea level won't rise when it's getting hotter. Or do you think it rises every summer? Bullshit. With higher temperature the water expands but this is countered by evaporation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:52:00 2014 No.6633908 >>6633904 The permafrost will melt, do you have a source that the increase in temperature is precisely enough to counter the permafrost melting?

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:53:46 2014 No.6633913
File: 87 KB, 1244x608, uslandfalls1900to2013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6633903
That's not true. Extreme weather is actually reducing with global warming. because the temperature difference between the pole and the equator is smaller.

yes some people predicted extreme weather but so far all the evidence shows they were wrong in the extreme. Insulation averages temperature which reduces wind speeds. This should be obvious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:56:06 2014 No.6633918 >>6633708 >200 m sea rise Is that water going to flow out of author asshole? Melting of all Ice caps on planet would rise water level by 60-70 meters.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:56:42 2014 No.6633921 File: 52 KB, 533x372, sealevel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6633904 Both models and measurements indicate otherwise. Image related. Source: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:57:22 2014 No.6633923 >>6633918 I'm guessing / speculating it is a combination of melting and thermal expansion. I got no proof though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 08:59:20 2014 No.6633929 >>6633904 >Or do you think it rises every summer? Bullshit. Dat northern hemisphere chauvinism.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:08:27 2014 No.6633942
File: 406 KB, 970x546, Earthbound.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6633903
Image unrelated.

From what I understand, climatologists do not believe there will be more extreme weather, per say; they claim that the storms that are formed will be much more powerful. Consequently, there should be an increase in devastating storms while there is a decrease in overall storms. The wording is tricky.
>>6633913
This chart confirms half of the claim.

Here is a peer-reviewed source that explain GW's effect on hurricanes:
www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/03/14/1209980110.full.pdf+html

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:12:17 2014 No.6633950 >>6633913 >yes some people predicted extreme weather but so far all the evidence shows they were wrong in the extreme. What was the consensus /at the time/? Was there a consensus? I don't have a good enough memory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:16:45 2014 No.6633956 >>6633942 katrinas per decade. You have to be shitting me this is some kind of joke? LOL They are using storm surge from original tidal levels plus storm intensity as evidence of storm intensity. Nice goal post move.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:25:03 2014 No.6633977

>>6633956
Nah, I had to cut sources because it was detecting me for spam. I had three links, and in particular, I meant to link the following: http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-020-159.pdf

But my original link was from springer link.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:34:02 2014 No.6633996

>>6633977
>http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-020-159.pdf

Why did Springer allow this it makes me cry.

>The increasing proportion of intense hurricanes has been
accompanied by a similar decrease in weaker hurricanes
and the development of a distinctly bimodal distribution in
the proportions of hurricanes in each Saffir–Simpson cat-
egory

ohh gee i wonder why genius. I guess it's not because we have satellites to accurately measure the storm wall of every storm on earth or anything.

Using the saffir simpson scale is a bad joke. That is early 20th century science.

What they should do is use the measured pressure changes on landfall hurricanes only because landfall hurricanes are the only reliably measured resource that we have an accurate record back before the 1980's.

>The global annual frequency of all tropical cyclones
(Fig.
3
a) has remained essentially constant with ACCI,
aside from a general variability with amplitude around 10 % from the mean for the whole period.

Magic, hurricanes get stronger but we have the same number of hurricanes. Absolutely fascinating.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:48:08 2014 No.6634024
File: 37 KB, 600x586, nickbabby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6633996
>Is given peer-reviewed literature
>responds with incredulity
>nothing to back up incredulity

There are more peer-reviewed papers that support the claim. http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/ElsnerKossinJagger2008.pdf

I am not claiming each bit of research to be flawless; that's in the domain of experts to decide. However, I have not seen any peer-reviewed literature to observes something contrary. Do you have anything?

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:51:11 2014 No.6634035
File: 286 KB, 1024x548, cyclone-energy-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6633996
You can' mix satellite observed windspeed hurricane data with weather station and ship windspeed data it's completely fucked.

If you want to use satellite data than only use the satellite data separately. Here it is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:57:19 2014 No.6634041 >>6634035 http://policlimate.com/tropical/index.html There's a link to the information (updated more recently) to get the full story instead of a cherry-picked graph.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 09:57:50 2014 No.6634042

>>6634024
peer review doesn't mean shit.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/full/444971b.html

> Direct obser-vational verification of this relationship over the global tropics is lacking.

Ohh cool. So you just made this shit up. Ok in your fantasy model world hurricanes increased but in reality they didn't.. nice. I like it +1

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:01:55 2014 No.6634047 File: 258 KB, 1394x710, frequency_12months.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634041 nice I like it such cherry picking, everyone can do it.. wow +1 i like it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:03:59 2014 No.6634051 >>6634024 PhD here. A great man once said, "95 percent of everything is shit." This goes for peer reviewed articles as well.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:09:33 2014 No.6634060 [DELETED]

File: 2.49 MB, 250x200, gamfag.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6634051
Fuck, I did not know that. Thank you, PhD. I will use only 5% of scientific literature for linking. Tell a great man that I said thanks.

>>6634042
>>6634041
I apologize for mistaking your lack of evidence and use of le maymays as ignorance. A PhD has shown me how brilliant you are.

pls forgive

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:12:53 2014 No.6634070 >>6634024 peer review isn't the be all and end all m8 garbage in, garbage out

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:19:19 2014 No.6634076 >>6634070 It's still a lot better than "this faggot that posts on 4chan".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:20:33 2014 No.6634078 >>6634060 Its a step in the right direction. My supervisor is one of THE world leaders in electron microscopy, and he is notorious in his criticism of the articles we cite.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:22:43 2014 No.6634081 Wait, you're arguing against climate change? The only people they can find that argue against man-made climate change POST ON /b/ AND THINK THEY ARE WITTY, FOR FUCKS SAKE! >DERP! S-s-someone on /b/ must me smart... GET OUT! LEAVE! RIGHTFUCKING-NOW-!

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:28:09 2014 No.6634092

How do we get ahold of this problem?

> Ocean pH falling rapidly
> tropical forests vanishing under slas hand burn world wide
>food prices increasing rapidly
>water tables falling everywhere
>Population exploding
>antibiotic resistance increasing rapidly
>most of Earth's populations either in the grip of apocalyptic cult religion or authoritarian thugs
>nuclear power a non-starter everywhere
>Radical Islam will have nukes within 20 years
>All advanced democracies paralysed by structural deformities
>Society becoming rapidly less physically, mentally, and emotionally competent
>All large land mammals disappearing from the earth
>human-set fires burning globally
>Methane hydrates releasing across arctic circle
>net ocean albedo decreasing as ice loss accelerates
>One billion people worldwide starving every day and increasing

The banality of evil is precisely that it just kicks back and doesn't give a fuck.

>People debate storm intensity and frequency give me the distinct impression of never, ever being in one.

>People who slander Global warming, the models and theory that have been around since the 80s, strike me as exactly the sort of people who would get excited to pull the whistle on the train to Auschwitz

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:30:22 2014 No.6634095 >>6634076 >its still better than 4chan only marginally. it really depends on the article and the anon who is posting, in all honesty

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:30:29 2014 No.6634096 >>6634092 The bad news: there's no getting ahold of it. The good news: you will be dead before we really hit the wall. Enjoy it, you're living in what will likely prove to be the pinnacle of the human species' existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:31:23 2014 No.6634099 >>6634092 we dont. we sit back and enjoy the ride. i would learn some basic skills tho if i were you, while you still have the internet. like how to make soap and how to preserve foodstuffs.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:40:57 2014 No.6634112
File: 1.13 MB, 331x1003, allthecheetos.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6634070
Yeah, I know. However, research from experts that are reviewed by other experts beats the shit out of obscure blogs and tabloids. I am not claiming that these papers are the undeniable truth, but this is the research and interpretation of experts. Furthermore, at least two of the linked peer review were published in the decidedly most prestigious/rigorous journals that concern climatology.

I have not read contradicting or criticizing papers from experts -- which may exist. I have been looking, but have found nothing.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:41:34 2014 No.6634115

>>6634092
>> Ocean pH falling rapidly
If by rapidly you mean slowly, yes
>> tropical forests vanishing under slas hand burn world wide
if by vanishing you mean slowly and in developed countiries not at all yes.
>>food prices increasing rapidly
if by rapidly you mean around 5% per year than yes, although most of the rising is due to the inflation than the costs rising.
>>water tables falling everywhere
proof?
>>Population exploding
dropping in all 1st world countries and many 2nd world ones
>>antibiotic resistance increasing rapidly
We haven't had a pandemic in around 50 years (used to be every 15 years), last 'pandemic' killed 60 people, instead of the usual 20,000-250K/1m+.

some one else can do the rest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:46:50 2014 No.6634124 >>6634115 >if by rapidly you mean around 5% per year than yes That's pretty rapid. Inflation is typically 2-4%. Food prices consistently outpacing inflation is not a trivial thing. It's part of the reason middle classes the world over are disappearing.

Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:52:27 2014 No.6634136
File: 1.59 MB, 425x247, fucktouple.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6634124
You clearly did not read his post.
>if by rapidly you mean around 5% per year than yes,
>than yes
>not then

Yes is a secret country whose inflation is -4%, and since it's 5% more than yes, it's actually only 1%. Perfect.

More seriously, there is a lot of speculation on the sort of damage that climate change will provide. Shifting water and agriculture will not be an insignificant impact, but it is hard to predict the exact impact given the technology, effort, and plans we might/might not employ to help fix the problem. The trends will be the same, however: quality of life will go down, and some climatologists believe it will decline significantly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 9 10:55:56 2014 No.6634140 >>6634124 Couple this with the fact that wages have not kept up with inflation regardless. To say "yes it grows at 5% but x% of that is due to inflation" discounts that wages don't keep pace with inflation in the first place.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 09:45:33 2014 No.6635943
File: 2.71 MB, 255x191, 1356883759608.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Still buying into the global warming hysteria

There isn't a way to quantify the effect that human produced CO2 has had/will have, as opposed to natural climate variances (spoiler: it's insignificant). The climate isn't a solved system. AGW is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 09:47:22 2014 No.6635945 File: 68 KB, 1098x1098, 1400963395514.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634081

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:01:24 2014 No.6635956

>>6633903
>people will be chopping down the forest like they are doing it Brazil.
People are chopping down the forest in brazil because they're poor and don't have an electric fucking stove and/or fossil based fertilizers.

Reducing CO2 can not be made while giving these people fossil based fertilizers and electric stoves.

So to save people from the highly speculative future minute effects of CO2 increase, we should certainly destroy the environment today.

Thanks environmentalists for being fucking hypocrites.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:02:38 2014 No.6635957

>>6635945
Problems with this dichotomy arise when the plurality of relevant scientists come down on one side. Then it comes down to calling it a funding conspiracy, which is absurd as someone is obviously willing to pay a great deal of money for opposing points of view due to the propaganda machine supporting it. The arguments against the plurality view of climatology is the same as the arguments against evolution: supported and perpetuated by a propaganda machine with a specific political agenda calling the scientific consensus a funding conspiracy and misrepresenting cherry picked data tot he public.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:07:57 2014 No.6635967 >>6633865 it's neither my problem nor my fault that some people decide to breed like rabbits. My country doesn't have any overpopulation, in fact, our numbers are declining

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:09:29 2014 No.6635969 >>6633871 because negros

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:15:56 2014 No.6635974 can anyone explain to me how they even figure out what the temperature of the earth was before modern science? How do we know what temperature it was 100,000,000, 10,000, or even 500 years ago? How did they figure it out?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:19:06 2014 No.6635979 >>6635974 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_%28climate%29

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:27:25 2014 No.6635991

>>6635974
Basically, it's educated guesswork.

You don't find palm trees growing somewhere, and assume they were poking up through a mile-thick ice sheet.

The problem is, we have no way to validate the proxies. It was a surprise, for example, when the tree ring data was found to match the thermometer data for a while, and then diverged from it.

We're trying to figure out how things work over thousands and millions of years by looking at how they work on time scales from hours to tens of years. We can't really know where we've got things wrong.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:28:31 2014 No.6635994

It should be our top priority as a civilization to control the climate and prevent it from warming or cooling. The current temperature of the earth is the only reason we can exist in our current state. We need to keep it that way until we get space travel working.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:29:35 2014 No.6635999 >>6635969 ...and tropical diseases, venomous creatures, things that lay eggs in humans, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:31:50 2014 No.6636001 >>6635999 that stuff you can deal with. Australia is a pretty decent place

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:34:09 2014 No.6636004

>>6633807
And it's been shown that in high CO2 concentrations, trees survive better with less water, therefore they will increase in numbers and sequester that carbon. Deserts all over the world are greener today than they were 50 years ago. Climate change is going to be freaking awesome.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:34:44 2014 No.6636009 >>6633764 but anon there wont be any penguins

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:37:03 2014 No.6636012 >>6636001 >Australia is a pretty decent place criminals pls go

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:38:39 2014 No.6636014 >>6633942 >per say stop using this term until you can learn how to spell it and use it in proper context

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:38:43 2014 No.6636015 >>6636004 >And it's been shown that in high CO2 concentrations, trees survive better with less water, Ceteris paribus. That doesn't apply with global warming. And the deserts are expanding, too (not because of global warming).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:40:54 2014 No.6636018 >>6635999 I cant believe that anyone would be scared of those things living in a major city in any of those countries all that local shit is gone and has been replaced by pests bought over from alseware

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:42:05 2014 No.6636020

>>6633807
It doesn't have to be trees. It can be grass, moss, or algae. The plant that captures the carbon doesn't have to stay alive, the carbon can be stored in forms like animal life, microbial life, or dead material that rots slower than it's being deposited. Topsoil growth traps a lot of carbon.

Peat bogs are bigger carbon sinks than forests, and the greatest potential for increased biomass is probably in the ocean, particularly if we start fertilizing it to promote algae growth.

>>6636009
Why not? There are warm-climate penguins.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:44:38 2014 No.6636024 >>6636015 >That doesn't apply with global warming. On the contrary, global warming should also bring longer growing seasons to the boreal forests and higher humidity and more rain to dry regions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:45:15 2014 No.6636026 >>6635994 Unfounded assertions. I find your lack of imagination disturbing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:47:17 2014 No.6636029 >>6636015 http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx How can you look at these maps and think that "deserts are expanding."

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:53:07 2014 No.6636041

>>6635943
OP here, Ocean pH falling rapidly. As to the effects, see Nature, 6/20/2013, also, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas/1301589110

Again, AGW is just gaining more and more steam.

NASA just launched a climate satellite that is going to provide 10x resolution on Carbon sinks.

Best of luck to your career being edgy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:57:16 2014 No.6636046 >>6636041 >AGW is just gaining more and more steam. I guess that's why skepticism is at an all time high. Or did you just mean that AGW proponents are getting more and more loud and desperate?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 10:58:59 2014 No.6636053

>>6636026
He's got a point, though.

We should be thinking in terms of global climate and weather control rather than hippie bullshit like the precautionary principle.

If we see undesirable change (or a lack of desirable change) coming, whether it's manmade or natural is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what options we have to make things turn out the way we want them.

It's like asteroid impacts. We're not particularly fearful that we're going to cause impacts, and yet we're starting to invest in systems to detect and deflect killer asteroids, because they pose an existential threat to our society and we're becoming technologically capable of doing something about them.

Promptly ceasing all CO2 emissions is not a very practical option, as geoengineering goes. It's way too expensive, and not very powerful. We have much faster-acting, cheaper, and more powerful options, such as injecting particulates into the stratosphere or increasing biological carbon fixation through ocean fertilization.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:00:32 2014 No.6636056 File: 460 KB, 555x595, AR5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6636024 >higher humidity and more rain to dry regions. Nope.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:04:00 2014 No.6636061 >>6636056 >colors indicating increased precipitation dithered with colors indicating reduced precipitation I don't even... What monkeys designed this graph?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:08:16 2014 No.6636071

>>6636046
Deniers are growing similarly to how creationism is growing, and for the same reasons. Dissent amongst the experts, which was already small, has been shrinking with growing evidence and better tools. The rest of the dissenters are essentially shitposters and obscure bloggers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:11:40 2014 No.6636075 >>6636056 Please.... You have to be kidding me... These people think they can accurately predict this shit all the way to 2081? They can barely get the next DECADE right.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:13:31 2014 No.6636079
File: 39 KB, 548x319, ShitCreek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6636020
>Topsoil growth traps a lot of carbon.

As someone who works in Ag, and has studied Ag, I'll just say that the best a tiny majority currently do is maintain topsoil.

The vast majority of agricultural topsoil is declining, either at a fast rate or a slow rate. The reasons are fairly banal- why spend a premium in labor and equipment, and reduce your potential crop yields today, to preserve topsoil if you are going to be dead by the time its so thin practically nothing will grow?

Its not just brazil, its everywhere. Land is cleared and it begins to blow away immediately. Plow it, its disappears. Its a national program in many places. Its easy to plow up land, plant stuff, and then reap the immediate political and economic benefits. So that is what is done in most of the developing world. And the topsoil is blowing away by the ton every second of every day.

The other reason topsoil is going away is because modern technological societies' normalized customary civil engineering is predicated on grading and leveling land, and then entombing it with plastic sheeting, concrete, or asphalt, all of which basically destroy the microbial profile of the land, and shift the biota to an axonic profile. This is also occuring on a massive scale, constantly.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:16:27 2014 No.6636085

>>6636071
Actually, scientific support for catastrophic predictions has been crumbling under scrutiny. For instance, the clathrate gun hypothesis (the claim that a small amount of warming from any source is going to trigger much larger warming by rapidly thawing methane clathrates, leading to a runaway shift to much higher global temperatures) is largely discredited.

The only real consensus is that the Earth is warming, and human CO2 emission and other activities is making some contribution to it, not that the changes are bad, or even primarily due to human activities, let alone an impending catastrophe.

The vast majority of climate scientists don't study human consequences of warming scenarios. If they opine on whether the changes are likely to be good or bad, they're speaking outside of their professional expertise, and should be considered no more credible than any other person.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:16:51 2014 No.6636087

>>6636071
>Deniers are growing similarly to how creationism is growing, and for the same reasons.
Except that creationism isn't growing.
> Dissent amongst the experts, which was already small, has been shrinking
Except that it's been growing.
>The rest of the dissenters are essentially shitposters and obscure bloggers.
"Lets top off my lies with an ad hominem argument too"

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:20:28 2014 No.6636091

>>6636053
>We have much faster-acting, cheaper, and more powerful options, such as injecting particulates into the stratosphere or increasing biological carbon fixation through ocean fertilization.

>run one disastrous climate change experiment
>try to fix it with another

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:27:21 2014 No.6636099

>>6636046

>I guess that's why skepticism is at an all time high.

The believers in a storyline where a deity comes back to destroy the earth are offended by an alternative theory that humans destroy the earth. Oh, the irony.

Lets be honest. The proportion of AGW-deniers that also happen to be conservative- that is, believers or sympathizers in the apocalyptic death cults- is high.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:28:23 2014 No.6636100

>>6636053
>Promptly ceasing all CO2 emissions is not a very practical option, as geoengineering goes. It's way too expensive, and not very powerful. We have much faster-acting, cheaper, and more powerful options, such as injecting particulates into the stratosphere or increasing biological carbon fixation through ocean fertilization.

Any links to studies on the feasibility / drawbacks to these?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:30:43 2014 No.6636104

>>6636087
Creationism is growing.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Dissent amongst experts is shrinking.
>http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901439/

Yes, shitposters and obscure bloggers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:31:05 2014 No.6636106 >>6636100 https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:37:36 2014 No.6636112

>>6636091
I don't see any disaster from the choice of burning carbon fuels. I see tremendous societal progress and increase of wealth, with barely-detectable effects on the climate and vague concerns that they will continue to the point of being moderately inconvenient in another century or so.

Stomping your feet and demanding that we stop burning carbon fuels, when you know damned well that it isn't going to happen, is a childish response to the situation. Even if you get some countries to stop, industry is just going to shift to countries that refuse to limit their emissions. We need to look at other solutions.

If we have the confidence to predict the effects of a weak greenhouse gas like CO2 a century in advance, we should have the confidence to predict shorter term effects.

Nature's whims are not benign and nurturing. A series of volcanic eruptions could drive us into a new ice age, or earthquakes could open large reservoirs of methane to the atmosphere and start a new warm period. Then there is the unpredictability of the solar output, and the mysteries of weather and its ability to set off positive feedbacks.

If we want a secure future of desirable climate, we need control, not a timid avoidance of having any effect.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:42:25 2014 No.6636117

>>6636112
>If we have the confidence to predict the effects of a weak greenhouse gas like CO2 a century in advance, we should have the confidence to predict shorter term effects.

That does not follow at all, on the contrary. You just exposed yourself as someone who has no formal education.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:42:38 2014 No.6636118

>>6636112

The burning of fossil fuels is an obsolete technology that will mostly disappear in the 21st century no matter what.

Your personal unqualified opinion of the impacts of CO2 is irrelevant.

And yes, we "need" climate control, but we don't have it, as the CO2 experiment demonstrates. I see no reason why any other experiment should fare any better given the current state of human society and technology.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:49:10 2014 No.6636130

>>6636118
>The burning of fossil fuels is an obsolete technology
No it isn't. It's still our most cost-effective option by far.

>that will mostly disappear in the 21st century no matter what.
So what's with the hurry to do away with it before the alternatives are mature, and switching is the economically sensible thing to do irrespective of climate concerns?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:53:48 2014 No.6636135

>>6636130
>No it isn't. It's still our most cost-effective option by far.

Not true. Even ignoring all the external costs, the price of fossil fuels can go only up in the long term, while newer technologies are getting cheaper.

>and switching is the economically sensible thing to do irrespective of climate concerns?

It has been sensible for a long time if you account for all the externalities. Now it is becoming sensible even without it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:54:30 2014 No.6636136 >>6636112 >If we have the confidence to predict the effects of a weak greenhouse gas like CO2 a century in advance Protip: We don't.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 11:59:58 2014 No.6636140 >more sunlight getting into atmosphere >skin cancer rates increase exponentially At this rate the earth will be more cancerous than /pol/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:08:06 2014 No.6636147 >>6636135 >Because we will cure all disease in the far future we can shut all hospitals today! >Subsidies are magic. If we give people $2 for every dollar they spend everyone will be rich and prosperous! As expected from crazy environmentalists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:09:39 2014 No.6636148 >>6636099 >that also happen to be conservative is high Which is yet another proof that it's a polarized and political issue, not science.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:11:55 2014 No.6636151
File: 49 KB, 550x362, hm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6636147

>I am losing ze argument
>what do I do?
>I know, strawman, and call him crazy!

This is not good enough for /sci/. Perhaps other boards would be more open to this style of argumentation.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:15:37 2014 No.6636157

>>6636135
>>No it isn't. It's still our most cost-effective option by far.
>Not true. Even ignoring all the external costs, the price of fossil fuels can go only up in the long term, while newer technologies are getting cheaper.
No, as demonstrated by the fracking revolution, the price of fossil fuels can go down with the development of new technology. There is still a tremendous amount of the stuff just lying around in the ground, and it can get much cheaper as we reduce our labor costs and get better at changing it from less valuable forms into more valuable forms.

Other technologies likely to reduce fossil fuel prices:
- in-situ coal gasification
- methanol economy
- advanced refineries and synthesis facilities
- coal-water slurry fuel
- robotic extraction
- advanced manufacturing of generation and extraction systems

Fossil fuel energy prices can go down a long way for a considerable length of time before they have to start coming up again due to running out.

>It has been sensible for a long time if you account for all the externalities. Now it is becoming sensible even without it.
You mean the distant future speculative externalities? Many of the externalities so far have been positive, including increased crop yields. Plants grow better with more CO2 in the air, and that's a benefit we've been enjoying for some time now.

It has certainly not been "sensible for a long time". This claim demonstrates tremendous ignorance of industry and the economy. We have not had anything that could replace fossil fuels at near the same price. At most, we could have had a moderately larger fraction of our power grid running on nuclear without setting our economy back by decades.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:15:39 2014 No.6636158 >>6636148 Well, duh. Many AGW septics also happen to be creationists, you think that's a coincidence?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:17:33 2014 No.6636160 >>6636099 >conservative- that is, believers or sympathizers in the apocalyptic death cults Holy shit, are people really this ignorant of what "conservative" means? >>>/pol/

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:19:38 2014 No.6636164

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:22:43 2014 No.6636170 >>6636158 Many AGW skeptics also happen to be climatologists and geologists, you think that's a coincidence?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:23:51 2014 No.6636172

>>6636164
>Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

There are a lot of independent studies that reproduce the same results. One of the most famous independent studies was by a denier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth#Reactions

>>6636170
[citation needed]

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:25:08 2014 No.6636177

>>6636157

The price of fossil fuels is not going down and it is not expected to go down in the long term.

>You mean the distant future speculative externalities?

No, I mean both the present and the future externalities (and not just global warming) Again, your personal unqualified opinion is irrelevant.

>We have not had anything that could replace fossil fuels at near the same price.

We could have had the almost entire power grid running on nuclear given sufficient will to do so (like in France). In the coming decades, the fossil fuels will not be able to compete with anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:26:11 2014 No.6636181 >>6636170 haha, no >>6636104

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:27:13 2014 No.6636183 >>6636172 You're responding to a copypasta dude.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:30:58 2014 No.6636189 File: 60 KB, 1009x791, flimflam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6636183 fuk. I've been hornswoggled.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:36:38 2014 No.6636198

>>6636118
>The burning of fossil fuels is an obsolete technology that will mostly disappear in the 21st century no matter what.

I'd like to believe it but primary energy has pragmatic value in that it can be used to get things done, and the infrastructure to facilitate that is widely in place. The investments tend to motivate their owners to continue trying to extract value from them.

I'd like to see the conversion to non-carbon sources generally, but the proliferation of devices which use this energy means it will take a long time for those stakeholders to finally give up on their investments.

The economists who study this stuff all agree that most of the world is still going to be burning fossil fuels clear into the latter half of the 21st century.

Ford sells 70,000 trucks that get an average of 22 miles per gallon in the US every month. Those owners if they are typical as any others will pay any incidental price to drive the thing until it falls apart. Each truck is capable of going about 150,000 miles or 15 years until major repairs are necessary. (150,000mi/22 mi/gals)*70,000*12 = a _yearly_ future investment implication of 5,727,272,727 gallons of gasoline per year just for those Ford F150s.

Note: those trucks aren't going to run on anything but gasoline, 15% ethanol at best. They're never going to be retrofitted.

The owners will pay any price to keep them running. Its a psychological investment thing. The question is, is that a good investment? I'd say no. America uses the most fossil fuels and has also seen a spectacular decline in real wealth since WWII. Its no secret its cities and towns and countryside are designed in terms of the automobile and using massive amounts of energy. Thats where all that extra wealth went. We had cheap energy, we burned it all up in processes and choices that were on the order of 90% inefficient, and here we are stuck with the infrastructure, and the debt. China is following suit as fast as it can.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:38:08 2014 No.6636199

>>6636172
>was by a denier
And several who started out pro have turned against against AGW.

You don't actually care about the science, you don't actually care about consequences, you just care about "us" winning over "them", and as long as your bias is with the pro camp you don't actually care what they say or how they say it as long as it fits your world view.

Here's how it looks like.

>Economic analysis shows adaptation to cost the same as pre-emptive CO2 reduction[true according to IPCCs figures]
"OMG DENIER! Clearly this can't be true and here's what the non-peer reviewed realclimate blog tells me is the true truth, here's also a battery of links involving 20 hours of bullshit reading materials that while irrelevant to the subject at hand or downright false will allow me to win debates by constantly referring to it as a refutation or proof"
>Wildly assumptious study says that that CO2 will cause summers so hot that the oxygen undergoes fusion and falls out of the air as iron rain!
"LOOK DENIERS! How can't you believe in this reasonable study! repent! REPENT OR BURN!"

Rinse, repeat, every day.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:40:39 2014 No.6636202

>>6636198

I think the obvious superiority of the new technologies will overcome the "psychological thing". I could be wrong, of course. And no, there is no economic consensus regarding the use of fossil fuels in the 21st century. It's all up in the air.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:43:00 2014 No.6636204

>>6636172
>There are a lot of independent studies that reproduce the same results. One of the most famous independent studies was by a denier:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth#Reactions
He wasn't a denier.

He claimed to have been a "climate agnostic", who thought some of the evidence should be looked at more rigorously.

That Wikipedia page is heavily slanted and very misleading, anyway. I don't know why you post it over and over in these threads.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/08/the-best-is-yet-to-come-an-interview-with-richard-muller
>Asked if it's really accurate to say he was ever a skeptic, Muller replies: "I have considered myself only to be a properly skeptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier - no, that's completely wrong.

>Criticism of the BEST project has come thick and fast, uniting skeptics and mainstream voices in condemning both the group's methods and its decision to release its findings before they underwent peer review.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:43:14 2014 No.6636205 >>6636199 >Economic analysis shows adaptation to cost the same as pre-emptive CO2 reduction Not that guy, but could you link this bit in the IPCC report?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:44:18 2014 No.6636206 >>6636198 >America uses the most fossil fuels and has also seen a spectacular decline in real wealth since WWII. This statement places you firmly on the lunatic fringe.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 12:48:43 2014 No.6636208
File: 66 KB, 596x244, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6636199
>"OMG DENIER! Clearly this can't be true and here's what the non-peer reviewed realclimate blog tells me is the true truth, here's also a battery of links involving 20 hours of bullshit reading materials that while irrelevant to the subject at hand or downright false will allow me to win debates by constantly referring to it as a refutation or proof"
>"LOOK DENIERS! How can't you believe in this reasonable study! repent! REPENT OR BURN!"

The strawman is strong with this one.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:00:32 2014 No.6636230

>>6636205
GDP costs are estimated to be 0.2-2% at the end of the century.
GDP boosting effects of warming itself (assuming it happens at all), and cheap-fuel associated GDP increases will outstrip that.

End of the century of course is 85 years into the future so the accuracy of each and every prediction is shit, but the law of cynicism suggests that fusion will be 50 years away. Cancer will almost be cured. "the recovery" will still be happening. Peak oil will be right around the corner and if we don't ratify the Tokyoto protocol we're all going to die just in time for the proponents to have retired by the time the bad stuff should happen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:03:00 2014 No.6636236 >>6636230 Could you link the specific part of the report like I asked you to?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:03:41 2014 No.6636238 >>6636208 >I can't answer but this is like a childrens game where I can shout 'mirror'... i mean 'strawman' and automatically win the argument Good job little cultist, I'm sure you'll get the minion of the month award.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:04:25 2014 No.6636240

>>6636202
I think the obvious superiority of the new technologies will overcome the "psychological thing". I could be wrong, of course. And no, there is no economic consensus regarding the use of fossil fuels in the 21st century. It's all up in the air.

Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. have clearly laid out their bets haven't they?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:08:06 2014 No.6636245
File: 324 KB, 1460x958, wpid-tin-foil-hat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6636238
>Plot twist: you actually used a strawman argument.
You could, of course, link the scientific literature that describes how, as you put it, "oxygen undergoes fusion and falls out of the air as iron rain!"

>>6636230
>End of the century of course is 85 years into the future so the accuracy of each and every prediction is shit, but the law of cynicism suggests that fusion will be 50 years away. Cancer will almost be cured. "the recovery" will still be happening. Peak oil will be right around the corner and if we don't ratify the Tokyoto protocol we're all going to die just in time for the proponents to have retired by the time the bad stuff should happen.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:09:45 2014 No.6636248

>>6636199

I get it you are a real contentious objector to AGW. Good for you.

You feel free to dispute and disbelieve and ridicule all you want, although its difficult to imagine how you can be thorough considering the avalanche of findings coming out of every field of physical sciences.

All the chips are going to fall where they may. The intensity of the investigation is going to "heat up" as the atmosphere does. The data sets will get bigger, and the observations are going to confirm or deny hypotheses about what is happening.

>>6636206
>This statement places you firmly on the lunatic fringe.

I should have said, spectacular decline in real wealth since WWII relative to the rest of the world.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:14:36 2014 No.6636260

>>6636248
>I should have said, spectacular decline in real wealth since WWII relative to the rest of the world.
Oh, what a shock that is, when the USA was the only major economy to escape the devastation of war, and gave out billion after billion in aid dollars to help the others rebuild, while also bearing the primary cost of preventing similar global-scale wars of aggression ever since.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:15:14 2014 No.6636261

>>6636240
>And no, there is no economic consensus regarding the use of fossil fuels in the 21st century. It's all up in the air.

I guess, but what about the fact that we're going to burn, on the order of 90 billion barrels of oil this year, and more every year, out to 2018 or so, when we're predicted to be burning about 96 billion barrels of oil?

Will any of the 4.2 million new model year Ford F150s be running on fusion energy?

Is my name Marty McFly?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:17:16 2014 No.6636263 >>6636261 Most vehicles sold in the coming decades will be electrical or hybrids.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:20:29 2014 No.6636275

>>6636260
>Oh, what a shock that is, when the USA was the only major economy to escape the devastation of war, and gave out billion after billion in aid dollars to help the others rebuild, while also bearing the primary cost of preventing similar global-scale wars of aggression ever since.

Well, more to the point, America also used the opportunity and the cheap oil to create the world's largest highway system, and design all of its civil infrastructure around personal automobiles.

What do you do with immense wealth if you are a bit short sighted? You blow it. We sucked billions of gallons of concentrated energy out of the ground and burned it to go flying down a highway.

Now gas is super expensive, and car dependence has impoverished us all, and made not a small number of people morbidly obese.

Those highways bridges and everything else have become liabilities. America is laden with debt, and its standards of living have declined. The wealth was a fluke, we blew it all in one generation.

Don't worry the rest of the world will follow as they've done a terrific job in imitating us.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:22:17 2014 No.6636281 >>6636275 >car dependence has impoverished us all ...and back to the lunatic fringe you wander.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:22:29 2014 No.6636282

>>6636263

Electrical = coal or natural gas

Hybrids = more coal, natural gas

Jevons Paradox: we increase efficiency, but gains are wiped out because we'll use the resources more often.

This culture and political economy really are the perfect mousetrap.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:24:43 2014 No.6636286

>>6636248
>the avalanche of findings
Which just happens to originate from the same few authors that keeps in touch informally over email and debates scientific topics like how to suppress and discredit everyone that doesn't share their belief, opinion or result.

> The intensity of the investigation is going to "heat up" as the atmosphere does.
I'll look forward to the 16 year pause.

> The data sets will get bigger, and the observations are going to confirm or deny hypotheses about what is happening.
More and better instrumental data is welcome as long as raw time series are publicly availible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:26:30 2014 No.6636288 >>6636282 >Electrical = coal or natural gas No >Jevons Paradox That's a micro thing, not macro.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:29:52 2014 No.6636291

>>6636281
>>car dependence has impoverished us all
>...and back to the lunatic fringe you wander.

Its contrarian to say so, even more contrarian than AGW denial. But its true. Oil is like Heroin. Feels good when you have it and the supply is good. When it runs out you wake up in a nightmare, busted broke and wondering who just fucked you in the ass.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:30:19 2014 No.6636294

>>6636286
Not who you responded to but...
> the same few authors
The same few authors produce 97% of papers that take an AGW position on climate science. Wow they must be productive!

You want to sit on your hands and do nothing for possible short term economic stability instead of doing something to prevent a highly probable economic disaster? Myopic, like all deniers.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:31:41 2014 No.6636297

>>6636286
>>the avalanche of findings
>Which just happens to originate from the same few authors that keeps in touch informally over email and debates scientific topics like how to suppress and discredit everyone

I'm talking about people who monitor physical properties in the environment at different places, all over the globe. Ice cores, shells of crustasceans, snowpack cover in alpine zones, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:32:40 2014 No.6636300 >>6636297 They were all bought by Al Gore.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:33:59 2014 No.6636302 >>6636291 >Oil is like Heroin. and Saudi Arabia is our provider keeping us hooked thanks to the efforts of their dealers, Dick Cheney and friends.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:41:40 2014 No.6636310 >>6633868 unaccessible -> inaccessible

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:41:50 2014 No.6636311

>>6636288
>>Electrical = coal or natural gas
>No

No?

>>Jevons Paradox
>That's a micro thing, not macro.

That is quibbling. Aggregate energy demand is predicated on the vast numbers of "micro" actors.

Lets assume fusion happens, energy is cheap and nearly free. What happens is that in very short time, the number of uses for energy explode and no one cares about conservation up until the point we've somehow used up all the fusion capacity.

Humans will find a way to use energy surpluses, no matter what. We will go to any lengths. Unlimited laser hair removal. We'll say fuck it, turn up the space heaters and leave all the doors and windows open. Phoenix will be repopulated and air-conditioned by a similar scheme.

Imagine, fuel cheap almost free? What is going to stop us all from driving massive SUVs 4x the normal size? How quickly would we extract all the remaining resources we can't synthesize? What is going to stop states from fielding massive robot armies?

I suppose I should imagine that with great power humanity will act greatly responsible. I somehow doubt it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:42:52 2014 No.6636314 >>6636300 >They were all bought by Al Gore. the problem with that is that it isn't true.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:49:21 2014 No.6636328

>>6636311

>No?

No

>That is quibbling.

No it isn't. The observed effect is not significant on a macro scale.

Your examples are just silly. Do you really think that the price laser hair removal is primarily determined by the cost of electricity? Or that your massive SUVs would fit in on the roads or garages?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:49:50 2014 No.6636330

>>6636291
Only the worst kooks are saying that as oil runs out, we're going to stop, or even cut back on, driving cars.

One of the reasons people are enthusiastic about electric cars is that driving will be even cheaper. It's been a very long time since producing and distributing gasoline was cheaper than producing and distributing electricity.

One of Tesla's big marketing gimmicks is pushing free charging, at stations where the electricity cost is covered by one-time installation of solar panels.

There are also new battery technologies, like ORBAT: a flow battery (i.e. the energy storage medium is pumped through the power cell, making energy capacity independent of power capacity), which has a higher energy density than lithium-ion batteries, but uses no scarce, costly materials like lithium in its energy storage medium, only carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur.

So we can expect electric cars to get cheaper and cheaper, while electricity also gets cheaper and cheaper, as technology advances.

Fossil fuels may be temporary, but they have not only given us prosperity while they last, they have served as a stepping stone to a greater prosperity, which includes driving cars even more. Fuck, we're going to have self-driving cars that we can ride in while drinking and arguing on 4chan.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:56:17 2014 No.6636339

>>6636294
>muh 97%
It's a good thing that climate, like politics, is something decided by consensus.

Also, that study is a piece of garbage based on cherrypicking source material, subjective opinion and preformed beliefs, if I did a study in the same way for pharmaceuticals I'd not only easily get whatever results I wanted with ease, I'd also never get it published anywhere.

Not that you care about quality, you care about the statements.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 13:58:30 2014 No.6636343 >>6636339 Not that guy, but did you read the study?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:00:40 2014 No.6636347 >>6636343 Do you know that the university where it was done is suing people for trying to look at the source data?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:01:10 2014 No.6636348 >>6636347 You didn't answer my question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:03:24 2014 No.6636352 >>6636348 I'm not the one you asked it of. Also: it was a jerky question. You don't find out whether a study was biased or used cherrypicked data just by reading the paper itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:04:12 2014 No.6636354 >>6636347 link?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:04:38 2014 No.6636357 >>6636352 How can anyone possibly say anything about any study without actually reading it? I mean, wtf? Ok, next question, did you look at the source data?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:04:46 2014 No.6636359 >>6636352 >You don't find out whether a study was biased or used cherrypicked data just by reading the paper itself. How else do you determine which data is used and if the method is flawed?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:08:58 2014 No.6636367 >>6636339 Did you read that in your dad's WSJ? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:10:25 2014 No.6636371

>>6636354
https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/my-hundredth-post-cant-be-shown/

Sorry, they may have only threatened to sue. I don't know if they have actually proceeded with the lawsuit.

>>6636357
>How can anyone possibly say anything about any study without actually reading it? I mean, wtf?
How can anyone possibly say anything about any event without having been there?

>Ok, next question, did you look at the source data?
See the first part of my post, and the bit about where they're threatening to sue people for trying to look at and talk about the source data.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:12:17 2014 No.6636378 >>6636371 So you didn't personally look at the source data? Or are you claiming that this cannot be done?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:12:22 2014 No.6636379

>>6636343
>How can you know it tastes like shit if you haven't eaten shit.
The study have all the hallmarks of being a useless piece of shit: Arbitrarily selected source mateiral. Subjective rating of said material by few people. And a main author who's known to be pro agw and in bed with several likeminded.

It's like sourcing articles from /pol/, sourcing reviewers from /pol/(who uses the highly scientific tool of opinion as a rating tool) and having Ben Garisson as main author and then act like the "it's all the jews fault" with a 97% consensus is a valid conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:14:30 2014 No.6636386 >>6636379 >The study have all the hallmarks How can you know this without reading it? You're not relying on just what _someone else_said about the study, right?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:14:36 2014 No.6636388

>>6636371
>>How can anyone possibly say anything about any study without actually reading it? I mean, wtf?
>How can anyone possibly say anything about any event without having been there?

Creationist detected
You don't really understand peer-review do you?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:19:18 2014 No.6636396
File: 10 KB, 256x197, youdontknow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6636339
>S-Stop using facts! Scientific consensus means nothing!

Str8 from the creationist handbook. In order to promote your ideal that is in contradiction to the scientific community, you have to explain away why the majority of scientists are drawing the same conclusions from several different fields. This results in usually two responses: "It's a conspiracy!" or "There is no scientific consensus! The studies are flawed!"

There have been separate studies that have confirmed the consensus, even though threatening to sue for a supposed copyright infringement does not discredit the study.

For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901439/

>>6636371
>How can anyone possibly say anything about any event without having been there?

Image related

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:19:22 2014 No.6636397

>>6636371
>>>6636354 (You)
>https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/my-hundredth-post-cant-be-shown/

"Apparently I badgered Cook too much." Sounds like this guy - a blogger with no apparent credentials - might have been harassing the lead author a bit too much (and hacked the data? unclear)? Not surprised they want him to go away.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:19:28 2014 No.6636398 >>6636386 >Metadata says nothing >Come on please eat that shit, ignore the smell, look and the fact that it came out of an anus, it's really not shit, eat it!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:20:19 2014 No.6636400 >>6636398 What metadata are you talking about?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:35:04 2014 No.6636431

>>6636400
>What metadata are you talking about?

>Metadata is "data about data".
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata

Data in your post:
>What metadata are you talking about?

Metadata about your post:
>Post made by idiot
>post number 6636400
>posted on, /sci/ the dumbest board on 4chan

I don't need to read an entire fucking paper to find metadata about it. In this case the authors name is pretty much enough to trash it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:38:47 2014 No.6636441 >>6636431 >In this case the authors name is pretty much enough to trash it. Wow. I didn't expect such a clear demonstration of an anti-scientific mindset. Why are you even here?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:48:37 2014 No.6636459

>>6636378
>So you didn't personally look at the source data?
You know you're being unreasonable here, right? This would be a research project.

Anyway, the methodology to claim a "97% consensus" is ridiculous. They took a sample of climate science papers, threw out the majority that took no position on whether AGW was real, then counted the number that stated AGW was real, implicitly assumed AGW was real, or examined a scenario in which AGW was real, and compared it to the proportion that stated AGW was not real or that the evidence for it was unconvincing.

Note that most of these papers do not state that AGW is dangerous, or even that warming is primarily caused by human activity, but we still got things like the Obama tweet that "97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous."

It's not a poll of scientists in general, or a poll of climate scientists, or an examination of how many papers state that climate change is dangerous. Unlike a poll, it's not an approach which can reasonably be used to establish whether a consensus exists.

It was enough for a paper in the sample to state, imply, or assume that the global climate is warming, and human activity has contributed to it to any degree, to be counted in the "consensus". To take the fact that there are 30 times as may papers that do one of these, as ones that argue against AGW, as evidence of a "97% consensus" is just strange reasoning.

Again: the majority of papers take no side on the issue. It would make just as much sense to take this data and say, "The majority of climate scientists take no position on AGW." (And note that I don't claim that this is a sensible conclusion. I'm illustrating the silliness of the reasoning.)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:52:19 2014 No.6636469 >>6633807 >Since we're smashing down the Amazon 1000x faster than we're planting new trees, This is straight-up wrong. Most deforestation now is in forests we specifically planted earlier in tree farms for the purpose of cutting them down later.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 14:55:47 2014 No.6636476

>>6636459
>You know you're being unreasonable here, right?

Is it? I mean, if you actually looked at the study. You'd know that pretty much everything you just wrote is wrong.

For example, it actually is a poll of climate scientists (they asked the authors to rate their own papers).

And of course the majority of papers do not take a side on the issue. Do you think that every biology paper also restates that evolution is true?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:13:17 2014 No.6636497 >>6636029 I don't see any maps on that site.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:22:24 2014 No.6636515 >>6636441 >Why are you even here? To have pointless debates with people with even worse anti-scientific mindsets.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:28:34 2014 No.6636525

>>6636476
>>>So you didn't personally look at the source data?
>>You know you're being unreasonable here, right? This would be a research project.
>Is it? I mean, if you actually looked at the study. You'd know that pretty much everything you just wrote is wrong.
Even if that were true, how would that make it reasonable to insist that, for the purposes of having an opinion in a discussion on /sci/, one should personally look through all the data of a study?

>they asked the authors to rate their own papers
This is silly, and doesn't make it a poll. Self-rating the content of papers is not the same thing as expressing a position, it's just a check on the reliability of the abstract rating. Remember that the majority of papers expressed no position on AGW. This majority of climate scientists in the sample were not asked what their position on AGW was.

A proper poll would have asked them to take a position, regardless of what they had published.

>We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.
What I'd like to see from a paper claiming a 97% consensus of climate scientists is a fair sample of the field, who are all actually asked to take a position, with a near-100% response rate.

It's pretty damn strange to claim a consensus without even bothering to ask the majority of the sample to take a position.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:29:45 2014 No.6636528

>>6636515
>Worse anti-scientific mindsets
This means he has a better scientific mindset because of grammar.

Not attacking your argument or anything.

Just, you know, grammar advice.

>Please let summer be over so these kids will go back to school and learn

>>6636525
>Remember that the majority of papers expressed no position on AGW.

read

>>6636476
>Do you think that every biology paper also restates that evolution is true?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:36:39 2014 No.6636536

>>6636528
Read

>>6636459
>Again: the majority of papers take no side on the issue. It would make just as much sense to take this data and say, "The majority of climate scientists take no position on AGW." (And note that I don't claim that this is a sensible conclusion. I'm illustrating the silliness of the reasoning.)

You can't claim a "consensus" based on statistics about a minority of papers published in a field, written by a minority of authors. The reasoning is very silly.

I'm not even arguing about the issue in question, about whether a large majority of climate scientists believe in AGW. I assume it's true. Hell, I assume most "denialists" agree that in the balance of probability, it's probably true that the Earth is warming, increased atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause, and humans are primarily responsible for the increased atmospheric CO2. But this paper is just dumb.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:43:27 2014 No.6636548

>>6636536

>the majority of papers take no side on the issue. It would make just as much sense to take this data

No it wouldn't, because you would expect that. No matter what the "true" result is. Again, you could do the same thing for biology, or any field you like. A field where there is no consensus would come out differently.

>Hell, I assume most "denialists"

This is wrong.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:46:46 2014 No.6636553

>>6636536
>the majority of papers take no side on the issue

If that is the conclusion, you can also say that the majority of biology papers take no side on the evolution issue.

It's because biology is a much bigger field than just evolution, so there will be a great deal of papers that have nothing to do with evolution and have no immediate contingency on evolution. Much can be said about climate research.

That is why they examine the papers whose explanations are contingent on climate change or the papers that argue and dismiss the contingency of climate change to issues.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 15:56:33 2014 No.6636574

>>6636548
>>It would make just as much sense [to do a thing that doesn't make sense]
>No it wouldn't, because [that wouldn't make sense]
See, what you're doing here is disputing something that's in your own imagination.

What you should be doing, if you want to dispute what I said, is try to argue that, somehow, the best approach to determine whether there's a "consensus" on a point is to find the people who are still arguing about it in the peer-reviewed literature and see which side of the argument gets more published articles. (and nevermind that it's kind of the definition of a consensus that people aren't arguing about it)

>>Hell, I assume most "denialists" agree that in the balance of probability, it's probably true that the Earth is warming, increased atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause, and humans are primarily responsible for the increased atmospheric CO2.
>This is wrong.
You're apparently not familiar with the things that get people labelled as "denialist". Think it's 80% likely that the Earth is warming, 20% likely that we suck at measuring "global temperature" over time? Denialist. Think it's 60% likely that CO2 is driving warming, 40% likely that changes in solar activity are driving warming? Denialist. Think the Earth is warming, and human-released CO2 is causing it, but there's no sense in cutting fossil fuel use now, since there's likely to be dramatic advancement in energy technology and geoengineering before the temperature increase becomes serious inconvenience? Denialist.

"Denialist" is a term commonly applied to anyone who says anything against the urgent need to cut CO2 emissions to prevent a climate disaster.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 16:02:23 2014 No.6636581

>>6636574
>>What you should be doing, if you want to dispute what I said, is try to argue that, somehow, the best approach to determine whether there's a "consensus" on a point is to find the people who are still arguing about it in the peer-reviewed literature and see which side of the argument gets more published articles. (and nevermind that it's kind of the definition of a consensus that people aren't arguing about it)

Yes, if people were arguing about AGW in the literature, that would indicate a lack of consensus. You figured it out.

>You're apparently not familiar with the things that get people labelled as "denialist".

I'm pretty sure that it's a combination of conspiracy theories and denial of scientific findings, just like in other instances where people get called "denialists"

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 16:06:25 2014 No.6636586

>>6636574
>Think the Earth is warming, and human-released CO2 is causing it, but there's no sense in cutting fossil fuel use now, since there's likely to be dramatic advancement in energy technology and geoengineering before the temperature increase becomes serious inconvenience?

I would not call this person a denier**.

It is one thing to accept the science behind what is happening. What humans should do about it is entirely different; that is up to politics and people to decide.

For example, accepting the science showing that smoking is addicting and harmful is one thing. With that knowledge, if you decide to vote for a ban or against a ban is entirely your choice.

However, if you deny the science, and the denial of science informs your choice, I would call you a denier.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 16:27:16 2014 No.6636630

>>6636328
Your examples are just silly. Do you really think that the price laser hair removal is primarily determined by the cost of electricity? Or that your massive SUVs would fit in on the roads or garages?

What makes you think that roads or garages have some fundamental limit? Where I live, Murica the Greatestest, there is one guy lives near me that has a 3-car garage that is seperate from the house that is as tall as a 3 story house. The doors are absolutely huge.

Primary energy is the fundamental premise behind anything, garages, roads, cars, or hair removal treatments. Cheapen anything, and more of it gets used, its a golden rule of Wreckonomics. Make energy so cheap its nearly free, do ya think anyone will think twice about buying a swimming pool and using hot water from the tap? Designing and marketing real flying cars which use 10x as much fuel as current?

We've seen the predicate to this scenario. Oil was pretty cheap when it first started coming out of the ground. Energy intensity increased to a corresponding degree. Today people all over America drive vehicles designed to simply be large. For a large people, it makes sense. But these people go to arenas to watch even larger trucks!

Cheaper energy doesn't just mean clean water and saving more nut for retirement. It means spending all the time you can using as much energy as possible.

We're a species that is designed to take highly concentrated energy and reduce it to its entropic ground state. Its an unconscious drive. Like our cousins the Fungi, we are external metabolizers. If there is energy, we set about wielding it until it is scarce again, reproduce, and shit out waste product.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 16:32:36 2014 No.6636638
File: 13 KB, 300x300, palmface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6636630
>What makes you think that roads or garages have some fundamental limit?

Yes anon, they're going to rebuild the entire traffic infrastructure just so that people could drive obscenely large cars. And then get their hair removed.

And learn to greentext, newfag.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 16:41:32 2014 No.6636648

>>6636581
>Yes, if people were arguing about AGW in the literature, that would indicate a lack of consensus.
..and the study does find people arguing, and both sides of the argument are getting pubished in the peer-reviewed literature, yet it claims that this indicates a consensus because there are more people on one side of the argument than the other.

The study sorts sample papers into 8 categories (7 main categories, one with two subcategories). Note:
>(4b) Uncertain
>Description: Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined
>Example: ‘While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive. . .
Now, these clearly count against any claim of consensus. These are climate scientists disagreeing that AGW is established fact.

A consensus doesn't just mean people are only taking one side of the argument, it also means that everyone is on that side of the argument, that there is a lack of undecided people.

But are these explicit doubters counted against consensus? No, 4a (no position) and 4b (uncertain) are both lumped into a single category, which is considered irrelevant and excluded from the calculation that claims a 97% consensus.

The majority of papers fall into category 4.

This method of analysis could conclude a "97% consensus" of AGW even if a majority of published papers explicitly stated that the human role in recent global warming is uncertain.

Meanwhile, category 3 (implicit endorsement) includes any paper which suggests that greenhouse gasses, regardless of their origin, can cause warming. These are counted in the "97% consensus".

It's a terrible, terrible study.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 16:53:45 2014 No.6636665

>>6636648
>yet it claims that this indicates a consensus because there are more people on one side of the argument than the other.

Because the amount of people who argue against is miniscule. That's what consensus means. If you expect unanimous agreement then you probably won't find consensus anywhere.

>This method of analysis could conclude a "97% consensus" of AGW even if a majority of published papers explicitly stated that the human role in recent global warming is uncertain.

You know, I actually had to look this up because it seemed that you might have a point, but you don't. There are almost zero papers claiming that the human role is uncertain in the category 4.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 16:59:57 2014 No.6636680 >>6633764 It's a lot easier for us to create heat than get rid of it.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:12:02 2014 No.6636703

>>6636665
>>>Yes, if people were arguing about AGW in the literature, that would indicate a lack of consensus.
>>..and the study does find people arguing, and both sides of the argument are getting pubished in the peer-reviewed literature, yet it claims that this indicates a consensus because there are more people on one side of the argument than the other.
>Because the amount of people who argue against is miniscule. That's what consensus means.
So if people were arguing, that would indicate a lack of consensus, unless the number of people on one side of the argument was was small, even though they were getting published in the peer-reviewed literature.

>If you expect unanimous agreement then you probably won't find consensus anywhere.
But that's what a consensus is, and why a claim of "consensus" is such a strong argument, and is commonly accompanied by remarks such as, "the argument is over".

History is full of examples where a mere majority in a field were wrong about something, and the small minority who persistently disputed it were eventually proven correct.

Use another damn word. "Consensus" is the wrong one.

>I actually had to look this up
>There are almost zero papers claiming that the human role is uncertain in the category 4.
Could you share what you found? How many is "almost zero", and where did you get this figure? Are you aware that authors have objected that their papers were put in category 4 when they belonged in one of the anti-AGW categories?

Anyway, regardless of how many papers were placed in category 4b, it's clearly inappropriate to omit them from the non-consensus position statistics, just as it's clearly inappropriate to include any paper which remarks that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as supporting the consensus.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:29:26 2014 No.6636723

>>6636703
>But that's what a consensus is

If that's what consensus is, then there is no consensus on anything. And yes, consensus can be wrong, that doesn't alter the fact that there is a consensus.

>Could you share what you found? How many is "almost zero", and where did you get this figure?

What is this? Are we doing a "research project" now? I thought you were content with just posting uniformed crap on the internet. How about start by reading the goddamn paper?

>Are you aware

You cannot use the author self-ratings to attack the study because these ratings support its conclusion. Of course there were some abstracts that were misrated by the external raters (in all categories).

>Anyway, regardless of how many papers were placed in category 4b, it's clearly inappropriate to omit them from the non-consensus position statistics,

What is inappropriate is to make shit up on a supposedly /science/ board. Read the paper.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:42:05 2014 No.6636739

>>6636723
>If that's what consensus is, then there is no consensus on anything.
There's a reason that consensus is something that's normally only spoken of in small groups. The larger the group, the rarer it is for there to be a consensus, and the more likely it is that the term is being misused.

>>Could you share what you found? How many is "almost zero", and where did you get this figure?
>What is this? Are we doing a "research project" now? I thought you were content with just posting uniformed crap on the internet. How about start by reading the goddamn paper?
I've been quoting parts of the paper to you for a while now. How about you support that "almost zero" claim, which you claimed you looked stuff up for?

>You cannot use the author self-ratings to attack the study because these ratings support its conclusion.
Not the self-ratings. After it was published, some authors complained that the contents of their studies had been mischaracterized. Not every author was contacted, and only 14% of those contacted responded.

The fact that the self-ratings significantly differ from the abstract ratings discredits the abstract ratings.

>>Anyway, regardless of how many papers were placed in category 4b, it's clearly inappropriate to omit them from the non-consensus position statistics,
>What is inappropriate is to make shit up on a supposedly /science/ board.
The example given in the paper itself for category 4b was an explicit rejection of the position that AGW is settled science. I quoted this part from the paper for you already.

You can't tell me that it was appropriate to ignore such statements in determining whether there is a consensus position for AGW, or that I'm making shit up.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:43:53 2014 No.6636744

>>6633708

>Instead of labelling my chart in degrees, let me label it in "IAU" where 1 IAU = 4.5 degrees C, so that at first glance people will thing that -2 degrees = snowball earth and +2 degrees = dinosaur hothouse, causing them to panic and draw attention to my garbage comic.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:47:20 2014 No.6636751

>>6636041
How can you directly link any of that to CO2 emmisions caused by humans and other factors? Purely out of confirmation bias.

CO2 is a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere, humans are responsible for about 0.01%. It only absorbs a few specific frequencies. How do we attribute changes in the climate which a massively complex and unsolved system to this in particular? It's ridiculous logic. We don't even know exactly how El Nino works or what causes hurricanes (it's not temperature dependent).

>>6636071
This isn't like creationism at all. I am not a creationist and I'm not a conservative. Get your strawmen out of here. Also the term "denier" is used to remind people of the term "holocaust denier" making people who question climate science literally as bad as Hitler. An incredibly cheap tactic.

The reason it appears that there is a consensus on the matter (which is irrelevant to science anyway), is that they constant say it over and over again in the media, and it is socially unacceptable, especially in the science community, to question or be skeptical about AGW.

If you would actually look there are tons of scientists on the other side.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:50:41 2014 No.6636757

>>6636739
>The larger the group, the rarer it is for there to be a consensus, and the more likely it is that the term is being misused.

So there is no scientific consensus on evolution? The shape of the Earth? I mean, there are still some Geocentrists out there, obviously the consensus must be suspect somehow!

>How about you support that "almost zero" claim, which you claimed you looked stuff up for?

Page 4, table 3. Do you want me to spoonfeed you? Do you find reading tables too difficult? I can't believe I'm arguing with someone about a paper they refuse to read.

>The fact that the self-ratings significantly differ from the abstract ratings discredits the abstract ratings.

How can it discredit them when the final percentage is very similar? Also, do you understand how samples work?

>You can't tell me that it was appropriate to ignore such statements in determining whether there is a consensus position for AGW, or that I'm making shit up.

Because they weren't ignored. The papers uncertain about the human involvement are not counted as a part of the consensus. You'd know this if you actually bothered to read the paper instead of posting dumb shit on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:52:16 2014 No.6636758 >>6636751 >This isn't like creationism at all. So why are so many AGW deniers creationists, then?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 17:59:33 2014 No.6636764

>>6633807
In that UN report on global warming that came out this year. One of their main points was we need to start afforestation. They basically said anywhere there isnt currently a forest we need to go plant a forest. We need to plant tress wherever they will grow pretty much.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:02:04 2014 No.6636767 >>6636758 Because that's bullshit you read somewhere and believed it because it fits your worldview? I seriously doubt any of the people arguing against AGW in this thread are creationists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:09:58 2014 No.6636778 File: 18 KB, 732x475, Kahan 2013.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6636767 You mean you didn't know? That most of this stuff is coming from religious fundies? Can't say much about this specific thread, obviously.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:16:49 2014 No.6636793

>>6636778
Wow that graph proves it, I humbly submit to you, good sir.

But aside from how true that is, it does make sense logically that creationists would be more skeptical of global warming hysteria just based on what they already believe. Doesn't change anything about the science, which is that AGW is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:21:23 2014 No.6636803 >>6636793 >it does make sense logically that creationists would be more skeptical Don't misuse that word. > Doesn't change anything about the science How would you know? You don't know anything about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:25:21 2014 No.6636810 >>6636803 Top notch discussion we are having here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:26:28 2014 No.6636814 >>6636810 Well, you could always try to explain how AGW is not falsifiable, but that would require you knowing something about the science, which you don't. But hey, give it a shot.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:31:33 2014 No.6636823

>>6636757
>Page 4, table 3.
I missed that, but note that they never explicitly state that the "Uncertain on AGW" line is the same as their category 4b, and they omit the "Uncertain on AGW" category from table 4.

It was apparently not offered as an option to self-raters to give their own work an "Uncertain on AGW" rating. Since there was a considerable difference in the self-rated statistics compared to the abstract-rating statistics, we might be unsurprised if many "No Position" papers would have been recategorized by responding authors as "Uncertain on AGW".

Immediately before presenting table 3, they explain:
>To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).
The surprise appearance of the fourth "Uncertain on AGW" group in table 3 goes unexplained. We don't know if this is category 4b, we don't know what criteria are applied, and we don't know what the authors would have had to say if they were given the chance to assert that their paper expressed uncertainty about AGW.

Omitting this option from the self-ratings is hardly appropriate in a study designed to determine whether there is an AGW consensus.

>How can it discredit them when the final percentage is very similar?
The percentage of "Endorse" self-ratings is twice as high as in the abstract ratings, but the "Reject" self-rating percentage is four times as high, and who knows how many more "Uncertain" ratings there would have been?

The proportion of Endorse to Reject in the self-ratings is similar to the proportion of Endorse to Uncertain+Reject in the volunteer ratings.

The appropriate statistic to regarding the self-ratings would be how often they disagreed with the abstract ratings. The self-selected respondants are not a fair sample, and this data should be used to validate the reliability of the volunteers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:33:22 2014 No.6636830 >>6636814 Falsifiable means there is some observation that could be made that would prove it to be false. Can you think of one for AGW?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:49:53 2014 No.6636855

>>6636823
>I missed that

No you didn't. You didn't read the paper, you simply mindlessly repeated what others wrote about it. And now you're in full damage control after it's been shown that you're full of crap.

>The percentage of "Endorse" self-ratings is twice as high as in the abstract ratings, but the "Reject" self-rating percentage is four times as high, and who knows how many more "Uncertain" ratings there would have been?

Most of the abstracts that were rated as no position or uncertain were rated as endorse AGW by the authors.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:55:31 2014 No.6636857

>>6636823
>The appropriate statistic to regarding the self-ratings would be how often they disagreed with the abstract ratings. The self-selected respondants are not a fair sample, and this data should be used to validate the reliability of the volunteers.
Sorry, my post was too long, and as I trimmed it down, it got a bit garbled.

I meant to say, the self-selected respondents should ONLY be used to validate the reliability of the volunteers, who are rating what should be a fair sample of the literature. Statistics are not presented on the disagreement between volunteer and self ratings (even in the Supplementary Information download, which states that volunteers assigned to rate the same paper disagreed with each other 27% of the time, casting grave doubt on the competence of their evaluation method), instead, the self-rating and volunteer-rating statistics are presented separately, without comment on how often the ratings of individual papers agreed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 18:56:58 2014 No.6636859 >>6636830 Well, yes. In fact, I'm surprised that you can't think of anything, or at least google a bit to see if someone put together a list or something. http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:02:19 2014 No.6636865

>>6636855
>You didn't read the paper, you simply mindlessly repeated what others wrote about it.
I've been quoting sections of it to you. Fuck off with this claim that I haven't read it.

It was easy to miss that category in Table 3, which as I've pointed out, was not explained anywhere in the main body of the paper.

>Most of the abstracts that were rated as no position or uncertain were rated as endorse AGW by the authors.
You're one to claim that *I* haven't read it, saying things like this.

Only 14% of authors responded. Most of the abstracts that were rated as no position or uncertain were not rated by the authors. And the uncertain option was not offered to the authors, which is obviously inappropriate.

Furthermore, we're not given statistics on disagreement between the abstract ratings vs. the author ratings. We're only given the aggregate statistics of each separately, and a rate of disagreement between volunteers of 27%.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:07:08 2014 No.6636868

>>6636859
>1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
Temperature from the 40s to 1975 was dropping, even as CO2 was increasing heavily. Also the 1930s were the hottest decade of the last century. Doesn't make sense if CO2 drives temperature.

>2. A drop in global sea level for some period of time
Sea level has been constantly rising for hundreds or thousands of years. So this has no impact AGW one way or the other, except that if AGW were true you would expect more sea level rise, which we will have to wait and see about.

>3. A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level
No one disputes that CO2 is rising, we're talking about what kind of effect that is having.

>4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks
While we're talking about past temperatures, something which does falsify the idea that CO2 is driving temperature is the evidence that shows that in the past CO2 level lagged behind temperature changes by several hundred years. 4chan thinks my post is spam if I try to link to things for some reason.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:08:53 2014 No.6636869

>>6636865
>It was easy to miss that category in Table 3, which as I've pointed out, was not explained anywhere in the main body of the paper.

And more bullshit.

>Upon completion of the final ratings, a random sample
of 1000 ‘No Position’ category abstracts were re-examined
to differentiate those that did not express an opinion from
those that take the position that the cause of GW is uncertain.
An ‘Uncertain’ abstract explicitly states that the cause of
global warming is not yet determined (e.g., ‘. . . the extent of
human-induced global warming is inconclusive. . . ’) while a
‘No Position’ abstract makes no statement on AGW

You didn't read the paper. And now you're lying about it, over and over again.

>Only 14% of authors responded.

You don't understand how sampling works, right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:10:56 2014 No.6636873 >>6636868 Holy shit, you've managed to get very single thing wrong. Impressive.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:17:13 2014 No.6636881 >>6636873 #rekt

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:21:55 2014 No.6636887 >>6636868 >4chan thinks my post is spam if I try to link to things for some reason. I suspect that the reason is people trying to spam anti-science blogs on a science board, but I could be wrong.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:23:54 2014 No.6636890

>>6636869
>You didn't read the paper. And now you're lying about it, over and over again.
Seriously, knock this shit off.

I've read what you quoted before. Let's have a close look at it:
>Upon completion of the final ratings, a random sample of 1000 ‘No Position’ category abstracts were re-examined to differentiate those that did not express an opinion from those that take the position that the cause of GW is uncertain.

>Table 3. Abstract ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and total number of papers.
>Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40)
Tell me: how did they take a random sample of 1000 "No position" abstracts, find 40 that were "Uncertain", and conclude that 0.3% of the total sample is "Uncertain"?

Taking a sample of 1000 and finding 40 papers should give you 4% "Uncertain". If it's not actually 4%, how did they come up with that figure of 40 papers? They don't explain this shit.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this study is GARBAGE.

>>Only 14% of authors responded.
>You don't understand how sampling works, right?
I understand why low-response self-selection doesn't produce a fair sample. Do you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:29:10 2014 No.6636895 >>6636890 I'm sorry, but this is just painful to read. It's not just the sampling, you don't even understand how percentages work. I honestly don't know how to help you. Perhaps read some basic math books or maybe a tutor or something.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:40:36 2014 No.6636908

>>6636823
>>6636857
>>6636865
After posting this, I feel I should comment on Table 5. "Comparison of our abstract rating to self-rating for papers that received self-ratings."

This is embarassing, because it does give figures for the volunteer ratings on the sample which got author ratings, so it shows the differences. However, they are just aggregates, presented separately.

It doesn't tell you how many disagreements there are. For instance, it shows that in this sample the volunteers only rated 12 as "Reject AGW" and the authors self-rated 39 as "Reject AGW", but it doesn't show whether 12 ratings were in agreement,

To use the author ratings to validate the volunteer ratings, we don't need to know whether the statistics come out about the same, we need to know the rate of agreement. This presentation puts a ceiling, but no floor on the rate of agreement. Given these statistics, it would be possible for every volunteer and author rating to disagree. It's shameful that these figures weren't presented, since they are of obvious significance.

Also, note that "Endorse AGW" was less than doubled by author ratings, while "Reject AGW" was more than tripled, which does suggest much stronger bias against "Reject AGW" among volunteers. We can only wonder what the "Uncertain" figures would have looked like if the authors had been offered that option.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:53:14 2014 No.6636913 I don't get denialists. Do they deny the greenhouse effect?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:53:44 2014 No.6636914 >>6636873 >very single thing wrong >very single thing >very How.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:54:24 2014 No.6636916

>>6636895
Let me walk you through it: they did not include the "Uncertain" category in their primary system of rankings, applied to the whole sample of 11,944 papers.

After sorting them into 7 categories, they took a random sample of 1,000 from category 4 (either no position or uncertain) and sorted them into 4a (no position) or 4b (uncertain).

Then in Table 3, we see "Uncertain on AGW" as a category, with both a percentage (0.3%) and a count of papers (40).

Now, 40 isn't 0.3% of 1,000. It's 0.3% of 11,944. But only 1,000 papers were looked at for the Uncertain category. So did they find 40 Uncertain papers among that sample of 1,000, and then fail science forever by presenting that as 0.3% of 11,944 rather than 4% of 1,000, or did they find 5 Uncertain papers, and scale it to 40 with no explanation that the given "count" figure was an estimate?

There shouldn't be points of confusion like this in a competent paper.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 19:55:28 2014 No.6636918 >>6636913 Some of them. Some deny that the temperatures are rising. There is no universal agreement except that the scientists are wrong.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:04:51 2014 No.6636925

>>6634092
Sounds like we are making serious progress from 1000 years ago to me. We went from global starvation and tyranny to about 1/2 starvation and tyranny and some CO2 is getting thrown in the air (oh god the models! the precious models don't like it Igor!).

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:08:33 2014 No.6636933

>>6636913
CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas. For the amounts we're putting in the air, there have to be strong positive feedback mechanisms, and a lack of correspondingly strong negative feedback mechanisms, for there to be a worrisome amount of temperature rise.

It's really not as simple as they tell you on TV. The scientific argument for significant CO2-driven warming is a lot more involved than "the greenhouse effect exists, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas".

Some denialists are arguing that CO2 is "near saturation", so adding more to the air won't affect the temperature. Others are arguing that CO2's effect on temperature is so small that it's lost in the noise of natural variation.

These arguments are not trivial to refute.

Even the fact of global temperature rise is complicated. For a start, what is even the definition of "global temperature"? How should we weight our samples? What is the reliability of historical thermometer records? What factors might bias them in a particular direction? How about temperature proxies?

It is not simply that they don't understand the popsci cartoon version. It's all actually very complicated. There are many ways to get it wrong while still understanding it far better than you do, and there are real uncertainties.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:09:23 2014 No.6636935

Who the fuck gives a shit if the Earth catches fire in 500 years? We will be off this plant (those of us who matter anyway) in 100 years at worst, by which time we will also have sexbots, near complete automation of the workforce (for those that matter, anyway), solar powered ecstasy dispensers, and test tube babies. Everyone needs to go back to their pillow forts and calm the fuck down.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:11:04 2014 No.6636938 >>6636933 >>These arguments are not trivial to refute. Actually they are. For example: >Some denialists are arguing that CO2 is "near saturation", so adding more to the air won't affect the temperature. Venus

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:12:18 2014 No.6636939 >>6636935 Don't forget about flying cars.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:16:41 2014 No.6636948

>>6636248
>I should have said, spectacular decline in real wealth since WWII relative to the rest of the world.

Not even that is true. Europe lost a shit ton of real wealth because of all the destruction during the war. They are simply catching up, while the US still continues to lead the pack.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:18:38 2014 No.6636949 >>6636275 Oil will be replaced. If you are so deadset in stopping AGW, you should be looking at the highway as a genius invention of prophetic design.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:21:12 2014 No.6636950

>>6636938
The sunlight falling on Venus is nearly twice as strong as that which strikes Earth, and it additionally has clouds of sulfuric acid to trap heat.

Furthermore, a saturation point could exist in the context of the Earth atmosphere for trace CO2, which isn't relevant to a situation like the atmosphere of Venus, which has 225,000 times more CO2 than Earth.

(note: our industrial processes are not predicted to increase CO2 levels by a factor of 225,000)

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:26:30 2014 No.6636955

>>6636950
>The sunlight falling on Venus is nearly twice as strong as that which strikes Earth, and it additionally has clouds of sulfuric acid to trap heat.

Actually, the main temperature effect of Venus clouds is to block incoming sunlight. Despite being closer to the Sun than Earth, Venus receives less sunlight than we do. See how actually knowing what you're talking about can alter your perception of which arguments are trivial and which are not?

>Furthermore, a saturation point could exist in the context of the Earth atmosphere for trace CO2, which isn't relevant to a situation like the atmosphere of Venus, which has 225,000 times more CO2 than Earth.

This is balderdash.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:41:06 2014 No.6636973

>>6636955
>Despite being closer to the Sun than Earth, Venus receives less sunlight than we do.
Maybe at ground level, but it's quite absurd to suggest that less light is striking Venus than the Earth.

Besides, never forget that the Earth's surface can only be cold because it is radiating into space. If we sealed the whole Earth up in perfect insulation, and prevented any sunlight from getting to it, and any heat from getting out, it would all melt. A sufficiently insulating atmosphere can make a planet's solid surface hot regardless of sunlight, due to internal radioactive decay.

Heat doesn't only come from the sun. You need a model of heat transport in an atmosphere 93 times thicker than Earths and with completely different clouds to say that Venus's surface is hot because of the greenhouse effect, rather than because of the clouds insulating the atmosphere so that decay heat and primordial heat can't escape the surface quickly enough for it to be cooler.

>>Furthermore, a saturation point could exist in the context of the Earth atmosphere for trace CO2
>This is balderdash.
Maybe, but it's not easy to refute, is it? Complex, difficult questions exist, which an expert may struggle with, let alone a layman.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 20:57:12 2014 No.6637004

>>6636973
>Maybe at ground level, but it's quite absurd to suggest that less light is striking Venus than the Earth.

Google "Venus albedo"
Most of the incoming solar just bounces off and doesn't warm Venus at all.

>Heat doesn't only come from the sun.

That's actually irrelevant as far as the greenhouse effect goes. If you want to argue that the greenhouse effect comes from the clouds and not from the CO2, you'd need to show that sulfuric acid is a strong IR absorber on Venus (protip: it is not)

>Maybe, but it's not easy to refute, is it?

If the Greenhouse effect is not saturated on Venus, how could it be saturated on Earth?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:15:44 2014 No.6637048

>>6637004
>If the Greenhouse effect is not saturated on Venus, how could it be saturated on Earth?
See, now you're getting details mixed up.

The argument was "CO2 is saturated on Earth", in the sense that more CO2 (within reasonable limits such as a doubling or two) won't increase the tempterature, not "the Greenhouse effect is saturated on Earth".

CO2 is only 0.04% of Earth's complex atmosphere, and water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas. And warmer temperatures bring more water vapor into the air, a positive feedback effect.

So why doesn't any given sunny day turn into a runaway greenhouse effect, with a higher temperature increasing water vapor, which increases temperature, which increases water vapor, until we live on Steam Venus?

There are also negative feedbacks, like water vapor condensing into clouds which reflect sunlight into space, and increased temperatures on the day side increasing the rate of heat transport to the night side, or into the deep ocean, or to the upper atmosphere.

In all of this confusion of positive and negative feedbacks, clouds and heat transport, who is to say that an increase of the non-water greenhouse potential of the Earth won't result in net cooling? It's complicated, and you have to dig into the details.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:19:46 2014 No.6637054

>>6637048

CO2 greenhouse effect is not saturated on Venus, why should it be saturated on Earth?

>who is to say that an increase of the non-water greenhouse potential of the Earth won't result in net cooling?

Because then the Earth would have turned into a snowball long time ago.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:23:42 2014 No.6637057 >>6637054 >the Earth would have turned into a snowball long time ago. ...but it did, or at least may have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:27:32 2014 No.6637063 >>6637057 And if the temperature effect of the CO2 radiative forcing were negative, there would be no way out of it. I note that you still didn't answer the Venus question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:42:23 2014 No.6637078 >>6637054 >Because then the Earth would have turned into a snowball long time ago. The argument works the same the other way, if CO2 caused warming the Earth would have already turned into Venus a long time ago

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:47:38 2014 No.6637089

>>6637078
>The argument works the same the other way, if CO2 caused warming the Earth would have already turned into Venus a long time ago

Nope, there is not enough incoming solar energy on Earth to put enough water vapor into the atmosphere to replicate what most likely happened to Venus.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:48:50 2014 No.6637094

>>6637063
>And if the temperature effect of the CO2 radiative forcing were negative, there would be no way out of it.
The sun's intensity certainly hasn't been constant over the past hundreds of millions of years. It has increased slowly but surely. That could have eventually melted the snowball.

And remember:
>>The argument was "CO2 is saturated on Earth", in the sense that more CO2 (within reasonable limits such as a doubling or two) won't increase the temperature
We're only talking about small variations of CO2 concentration in the context of the current Earth atmosphere, not huge changes in concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the bone dry atmosphere of the snowball Earth.

An interesting thing about the actual snowball Earth theory is that it suggests that volcanic activity can both suck all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere (by exposing carbon-hungry oxides, like calcium oxide), and blow hundreds of times the current level of CO2 into the atmosphere, and do either relatively quickly. An interesting question is whether we can trigger smaller versions of these events to fine tune our atmosphere's CO2 content at will.

>I note that you still didn't answer the Venus question.
Look, my point wasn't to start an argument about whether CO2 is actually "saturated". I was just pointing out that this is a position taken by people who claim CO2 isn't causing signficant warming, and that, right or wrong, it's an involved subject.

I'm not going to try and argue the position that it's true, just that it's complicated and you have to get into sophisticated considerations, where it's possible for intelligent, educated people to come to believe different things. It's not as simple as, "Don't they know about the greenhouse effect?"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:52:28 2014 No.6637099 >>6637094 >just that it's complicated I have repeatedly asked a simple question what you were unable to answer. There are complicated issues related to global warming, CO2 saturation is not one of them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:54:55 2014 No.6637106 >>6637099 >I have repeatedly asked a simple question what you were unable to answer. It was just about the first thing I did answer for you. Asking the question again doesn't erase what I've already said on the matter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:56:32 2014 No.6637110 >>6637106 >It was just about the first thing I did answer for you. No you didn't. You tried to argue that the Venus example somehow doesn't apply to Earth even thought it obviously does.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:57:28 2014 No.6637111 >muh 97% https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/cook-et-al-lie-their-faces-off/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 21:59:56 2014 No.6637114 >>6637111 >/sci/ - random blog spamming

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 22:00:24 2014 No.6637116

>>6637048
>who is to say that an increase of the non-water greenhouse potential of the Earth won't result in net cooling?
Gee I dunno probably some of the meteorologists and ecologists who STUDY IT THEIR WHOLE FUCKING LIVES AND COME UP WITH FUCKING REALLY ADVANCED MATHEMATICAL MODELS TO ANALYZE AND PREDICT ITS BEHAVIOR

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 22:01:02 2014 No.6637117

>>6637110
>it obviously does
...and that's the whole of your argument.

I bring up all of the ways in which the question is complicated, and you just say "This is balderdash." and "it obviously does", and ask the question again.

This might be how you like to argue on the internet, and satisfy yourself that you're right and everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, but it doesn't really pass for a scientific analysis, or a way to convince anyone who doesn't agree with you to begin with.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 22:04:12 2014 No.6637126

>>6637117
>I bring up all of the ways in which the question is complicated,

Handwaving. For example, you say

>We're only talking about small variations of CO2 concentration in the context of the current Earth atmosphere, not huge changes in concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the bone dry atmosphere of the snowball Earth.

If huge changes in CO2 concentration do not result in saturation, why should "small" changes? See what I mean?

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 22:04:26 2014 No.6637128

>>6637116
>STUDY IT THEIR WHOLE FUCKING LIVES AND COME UP WITH FUCKING REALLY ADVANCED MATHEMATICAL MODELS
Exactly. That's how complicated it is. It's not on a "Don't they know about the greenhouse effect?" level, it's on a, "Don't they do extremely advanced mathematical and computer models which come to that conclusion?"

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 22:21:34 2014 No.6637151

>>6637126
>Handwaving
Kind of the opposite. I'm trying to make the point that something is too complex for us. Handwaving is glossing over complexities and reaching a conclusion without dealing with them, whereas I'm drawing attention to them and to the fact that we can't deal with them.

>If huge changes in CO2 concentration do not result in saturation, why should "small" changes? See what I mean?
The argument is basically for local saturation: in the context of a water-vapor-dominated system 30 ppm would be significantly colder than 300 ppm, because there's some minimum of dry-air greenhouse effect that needs to be met, but at 400 ppm or 800 ppm the negative feedback effects dominate and it's not significantly warmer than 300 ppm, and at some point more than 800 ppm but less than 5% the dry-air greenhouse effect would overwhelm the negative feedbacks and significantly increase the temperature.

The point is that the atmosphere is a complex system. It's not a toy model, a simple linear system you can figure out in an afternoon. It's the thing that has weather in it. The weather affects the temperature. The temperature affects the weather. A hot day can create a cloud system that keeps temperatures down for several days, so the average temperature would have been higher if the peak temperature had been lower. It's a mess.

This is why layman discussions about global warming so seldom result in changed minds. It's over our heads, so we just pick a team and cheer.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 22:32:25 2014 No.6637172

>>6637151
>The argument is basically for local saturation: in the context of a water-vapor-dominated system 30 ppm would be significantly colder than 300 ppm, because there's some minimum of dry-air greenhouse effect that needs to be met, but at 400 ppm or 800 ppm the negative feedback effects dominate and it's not significantly warmer than 300 ppm, and at some point more than 800 ppm but less than 5% the dry-air greenhouse effect would overwhelm the negative feedbacks and significantly increase the temperature.

How is this anything else than handwaving? Why should the new negative feedback switch on at 400 ppm and then turn off at 800? And what kind of negative feedback effect should it be? And what does this have to do with the saturation of the IR absorption lines? You are simply throwing climate terminology on the screen without understanding what it means. No wonder it's way over your head.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:02:58 2014 No.6637222

>>6637172
Are you at least aware that the atmosphere is already completely opaque at the centre of the CO2 absorption band?

It can't seriously be disputed that the CO2 greenhouse contribution increases fastest up to this point, and then the greenhouse contribution increases much more slowly with increasing atmospheric CO2 mass, in proportion to CO2's much weaker absorption at other wavelengths. Before it is reached, some radiation in this band can pass all the way from the ground surface to space. After it is reached, none can.

What one might call CO2's primary greenhouse effect (catching all radiation in certain band, from the surface or lower atmosphere) IS saturated. Indisputably, if you accept the definition. What one might call the secondary contributions, which are not saturated, are weaker: raising the altitude at which there's total opacity in the central band, and increasing CO2's weaker absorption at other wavelengths.

It's not linear from snowball Earth to Venus. You can't just apply comparison with 0 CO2 or a quarter million times as much CO2 to determine the effect of an increase from 400 ppm to 600 ppm. The question is whether the effects of small CO2 increases, from our current level, in our current atmosphere, on our current planet, with our current sun, are negligible or significant. And that's not an easy question at all.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:13:20 2014 No.6637242

>>6637222
>You can't just apply comparison with 0 CO2 or a quarter million times as much CO2 to determine the effect of an increase from 400 ppm to 600 ppm.

But of course I can. Because if the CO2 greenhouse effect were at its maximum optical thickness at the current Earth CO2 concentration, then no amount of extra CO2 would increase the IR absorption. This is the "saturation argument", and it is refuted by Venus.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:21:31 2014 No.6637313

>>6637242
The "saturation argument" isn't that simple. You're strawmanning it.

The argument isn't that it's absolutely saturated for unlimited increases or miniscule increases of local temperature, it's that it's effectively saturated, for small increases of CO2, such as might reasonably result from continuing to burn fossil fuels, and significant changes of temperature, such as can be distinguished from the natural variation.

The counterexample of Venus, which has about 90 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth has atmosphere at all, is not very relevant to the question of what happens as we increase atmospheric CO2 from 0.04% to 0.1%.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:25:07 2014 No.6637367

>>6637313
>The "saturation argument" isn't that simple. You're strawmanning it.

Am I?

>As also shown by Miskolczi and others using different methods, Dr. Nicol finds that the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is already saturated at present atmospheric levels and that future emissions will not affect temperature. Dr. Nichol shows that the IPCC concept of greenhouse gas back radiation to warm the earth is fictitious and that the true physical process is retardation of the exit of energy from the surface. He shows that the greenhouse gas absorption bands retard the exit of energy from the earth's surface, but that there is an upper limit beyond which further increases in greenhouse gas concentrations have no further effect. The surface is radiating at a fixed rate governed by the surface temperature and any increase in greenhouse gases with the same absorption bands will "widen the path" for heat to escape to the same degree as heat is retarded from escape, and therefore there is no additional warming. These principles hold for all greenhouse gases and are beyond saturation for the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor and CO2.

It's not just that you don't understand radiative physics, you don't even understand what the other crackpots who don't understand radiative physics are arguing for. But at least they are consistent.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:42:16 2014 No.6637492

>>6637367
It's pretty fucking weak to try and claim that this is intended to apply up to the point of a Venusian atmosphere, which does not just have a stronger greenhouse effect, but also a much higher mass.

People generally say things expecting they will be reasonably interpreted in good faith, not with the aim of guarding themselves against any and all possible willful distortions.

You got that quote from a blog. The (presumably unpublished) paper it links does not consider outlandish scenarios in which the mass of the atmosphere is significantly increased, or where CO2 in increased by more than a few hundred percent.

It doesn't look like a particularly convincing paper, but you are, indeed, strawmanning it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:50:31 2014 No.6637531 >put millions of tons of some powder that is transparent to IR light but reflects visible light in orbit around the Earth to artificially increase Earth's albedo >stop caring about CO2 concentration

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:51:24 2014 No.6637537

>>6637492
>It's pretty fucking weak to try and claim that this is intended to apply up to the point of a Venusian atmosphere

Yes it does, it literally states that beyond a certain point the extra CO2 will have any effect. Don't believe me?

>The findings clearly show that any gas with an absorption line or band lying within the spectral range of the radiation field from the warmed earth, will be capable of contributing towards raising the temperature of the earth. However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.

I can show you more if you want, unless you prefer to stay in denial.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:53:01 2014 No.6637546 >>6637531 What do you mean "stop caring"? The extra greenhouse effect is still there, if your powder fails to perform as excepted, you'll get all the warming right back.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:54:07 2014 No.6637550 >>6637537 *will not have any effect

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:56:04 2014 No.6637555 >>6637546 >the extra greenhouse effect is still there More powder then. We reduce the amount of visible light that enters Earth to levels that would balance out with the amount of IR radiation radiated away.

Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:58:03 2014 No.6637562

>>6637537
>it literally states that beyond a certain point the extra CO2 won't have any effect.
...and you literally take it that this means "an additional 90 Earth atmospheres" rather than "even if we burn all the coal, oil, and gas we even think is out there, even tripling or quadrupling the current concentration".

Why not point out that if you added a few billion times more, the Earth would ignite as a star and there would be warming that way?

You're jumping on an incautious turn of phrase. It's unreasonable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 10 23:59:08 2014 No.6637566 >>6637555 You don't get it. That doesn't make the the extra greenhouse effect go away, it just masks it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:02:49 2014 No.6637574 >>6637566 Masking the greenhouse effect is countering it. If surface temperatures are the most vital thing to keep steady, it can be easily done.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:03:02 2014 No.6637575

>>6637531
It doesn't need to go into orbit. Fine particulates will hang in the stratosphere for years.

There are serious proposals to build a super tall smokestack (presumably held up with balloons) and pump sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface just enough to counter global warming.

Bonus: it blocks UV better than longer wavelengths, so less sunburns and skin cancer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:04:12 2014 No.6637577 >>6637575 Would that not create Sulfuric Acid in the atmosphere at some point in time later?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:04:19 2014 No.6637578

>>6637562

I don't know how to explain this to you any better.

>and you literally take it that this means "an additional 90 Earth atmospheres"

THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THE SATURATION ARGUMENT SAYS. THE ABSORPTION LINES ARE SATURATED, THEREFORE THE EXTRA CO2 DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE RADIATION BUDGET. IT'S RIGHT IN THERE.

Again, I can show you more examples from blogs and "papers". But are facts going to change your mind?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:05:30 2014 No.6637582 >>6637574 >Masking the greenhouse effect is countering it. No it isn't. Countering it would mean that you don't have to worry about it any more, not hope that the mask won't fall off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:06:56 2014 No.6637588 >>6637582 The mask will be as stable as the CO2 in the atmosphere. The most critical thing is that it gives us time to deal with the issue slowly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:10:25 2014 No.6637598 >>6637577 Yes, but it's not a big deal. This happens anyway whenever sulfur burns, such as when volcanoes erupt.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:10:27 2014 No.6637600

>>6637588

Really? How naive. I mean, look at this brilliant idea - >>6637575 Build a smokestack that goes into the stratosphere! And what happens if it falls down? Or if Abdul Ahmed crashes a plane into it? Or if the sulfur doesn't have the kind of effect that we want?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:14:40 2014 No.6637607

>>6637600
You do realize that we can identify the physical properties of materials and we know how the greenhouse gas effect works, correct? Given that, it's pretty easy to select something that will give the desired effect.

Also, if Ahmed crashes a plane into the giant smokestack then we just stop the chemical reaction fueling that smokestack and rebuild it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:18:15 2014 No.6637617

>>6637607

>Given that, it's pretty easy to select something that will give the desired effect.

Actually, it isn't. Unlike well-mixed greenhouse gases, the effects of aerosols are somewhat uncertain, especially in the long-term.

>if Ahmed crashes a plane into the giant smokestack then we just stop the chemical reaction fueling that smokestack and rebuild it.

So we get the warming back. And then cooling. And then warming again, when there's another accident or sabotage. This is really your plan?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:23:38 2014 No.6637629

>>6637617
I'm pretty sure you know nothing about the subject, given your replies.

>Actually, it isn't. Unlike well-mixed greenhouse gases, the effects of aerosols are somewhat uncertain, especially in the long-term.

We've seen the effect of SO2 on multiple occasions, volcanic eruptions have dumped it into the atmosphere causing massive decreases in temperatures in the past.

>So we get the warming back. And then cooling. And then warming again, when there's another accident or sabotage. This is really your plan?

It would take decades or centuries for anything we put that far up to come back down. If we can rebuild it within a year or two, then the effect on the temperature would be negligible. Also, Ahmeds not going to run a plane into something that will cause no casualties and have no major effect on anyone in the short term.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:27:14 2014 No.6637636 >greenhouse gas theories >supported by empirical evidence pick one.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:30:23 2014 No.6637643

>>6637578
>>and you literally take it that this means "an additional 90 Earth atmospheres"
>THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THE SATURATION ARGUMENT SAYS.
Oh, the saturation argument literally says that increasing the Earth atmosphere 90-fold with CO2 won't affect heat capacity and convection?

You really want to make this "B-b-but Venus!" thing work, but it's a shit argument. There are too many other differences to consider with Venus.

>THE ABSORPTION LINES ARE SATURATED, THEREFORE THE EXTRA CO2 DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE RADIATION BUDGET. IT'S RIGHT IN THERE.
...and this is supposed to be necessarily intended to apply to increasing the amount of the greenhouse gas by hundreds of thousands of times?

>Again, I can show you more examples from blogs and "papers". But are facts going to change your mind?
They are if you show me an example that proves you're being reasonable in your interpretation. Find me one that says that explicitly that this applies even when increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by over 20 million percent.

And no, saying "unlimited" does not mean either "20 million percent" or "enough to collapse Earth into a black hole". That's not a reasonable scenario, so it's not reasonable to assume that they're including it in their "without limit" statements rather than just speaking a little loosely.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:32:35 2014 No.6637649

>>6637629
>We've seen the effect of SO2 on multiple occasions,

We haven't seen anything like SO2 injection to balance out the GHG output for hundreds of years. That's a huge uncertainty for the future.

>It would take decades or centuries for anything we put that far up to come back down.

This is not true. The aerosol residence time is several years at max (or even just months, depending on the region).

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:38:41 2014 No.6637654

>>6637600
>what happens if it falls down?
Doesn't matter. Takes years for the effect to wear off, does not take years to loft a tube with balloons. Hell, the tube could probably be held up by the warm smoke in it.

>Or if Abdul Ahmed crashes a plane into it?
Doesn't matter. It's not even a terribly expensive plan.

>Or if the sulfur doesn't have the kind of effect that we want?
We have experience of stratospheric particulates. They go up and down quite often with volcanic eruptions and changes of industrial practices. Unlike atmospheric CO2, we get plenty of real experience observing the effects of variations, because it changes from year to year, going both up and down, rather than over decades only going up. Plus, we can afford to experiment with it, to ease into it.

It's much, much easier to predict the effects of stratospheric sulfur dioxide injection than CO2 emission. If we can do the latter with any degree of accuracy, we can certainly do the former.

The bigger problem is: how do we agree on what the world temperature should be? How do we stop someone who decides to put more than we want up there?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:39:47 2014 No.6637655
File: 47 KB, 484x386, ha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6637643

Oh come on, can't you see how pathetic this is?

>...and this is supposed to be necessarily intended to apply to increasing the amount of the greenhouse gas by hundreds of thousands of times?

YES, YES THIS IS AN EXPLICIT CONSEQUENCE OF THE (BOGUS) MODEL OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT USED IN THE SATURATION ARGUMENT. WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY READ THE STUFF?

And of course there are differences with Venus. But not with relation to the saturation argument. In this model, Venus CO2 greenhouse effect is just as saturated as the Earth is, the warming is caused by something else (sulfur clouds or some other nonsense).

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:40:43 2014 No.6637657

>>6637649
Keep in mind that if an operation like that were pursued, there would be hundreds of smokestacks operating around the globe in order to get things working properly. Getting rid of one would be negligible.

Also, SO2 is not an an aerosol, it's a gas. My initial post was proposing fine particles outside of the Earth's atmosphere in orbit, but I jumped on to the other guy's idea of smoke stacks and SO2 gas.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:44:13 2014 No.6637663
File: 136 KB, 700x509, url.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6637654
>It's much, much easier to predict the effects of stratospheric sulfur dioxide injection than CO2 emission.

No, sorry, but no. The aerosol effects are the largest source of uncertainty in the estimates of radiative forcing. And we can't effectively experiment with it because local or short-term data won't tell you much about what happens decades ahead.

>The bigger problem is: how do we agree on what the world temperature should be? How do we stop someone who decides to put more than we want up there?

Well, at least you're not completely retarded. Of course, this still assumes that we will be able to effectively control the global temperature, which is wishful thinking at this point.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:44:19 2014 No.6637664

>>6637655
>>...and this is supposed to be necessarily intended to apply to increasing the amount of the greenhouse gas by hundreds of thousands of times?
>YES, YES THIS IS AN EXPLICIT CONSEQUENCE OF THE (BOGUS) MODEL OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT USED IN THE SATURATION ARGUMENT. WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY READ THE STUFF?
You're big on calling things "explicit" without being able to produce a quote where they're said explicitly.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:46:18 2014 No.6637669

>>6637664

>The surface is radiating at a fixed rate governed by the surface temperature and any increase in greenhouse gases with the same absorption bands will "widen the path" for heat to escape to the same degree as heat is retarded from escape, and therefore there is no additional warming.

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works in this model?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:46:38 2014 No.6637672 >>6637657 >SO2 is not an an aerosol, it's a gas. Not in the stratosphere. It doesn't have a very high boiling point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:47:47 2014 No.6637674 >>6637672 >It doesn't have a very high boiling point. Err... low. It doesn't have a very low boiling point. Its boiling point is relatively high. It condenses to a liquid a little below the freezing point of water.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:49:29 2014 No.6637682 >>6637669 Do you know what the word "explicit" means?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:51:23 2014 No.6637687 >>6637674 I see. Never knew that.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:52:39 2014 No.6637691

>>6637657

>Also, SO2 is not an an aerosol, it's a gas.

Jesus fucking Christ, why why why does someone as uniformed as you even advocate for, well, anything related to global warming?

>Primary aerosol formation, also known as homogeneous aerosol formation results when gaseous SO2 combines with water to form aqueous sulfuric acid (H2SO4). This acidic liquid solution is in the form of a vapor and condenses onto particles of solid matter, either meteoritic in origin or from dust carried from the surface to the stratosphere. Secondary or heterogeneous aerosol formation occurs when H2SO4 vapor condenses onto existing aerosol particles. Existing aerosol particles or droplets also run into each other, creating larger particles or droplets in a process known as coagulation. Warmer atmospheric temperatures also lead to larger particles. These larger particles would be less effective at scattering sunlight because the peak light scattering is achieved by particles with a diameter of 0.3 μm

You didn't really think that we'd just spray SO2 in the orbit and it would cool the Earth, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:54:05 2014 No.6637695 >>6637682 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE HOW THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WORKS IN THAT MODEL OR NOT.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 00:56:18 2014 No.6637698

>>6637663
>local or short-term data won't tell you much about what happens decades ahead.
Doesn't matter. The aerosol only stays up for a few years. You don't have to predict decades in advance. You can adjust it as you go.

As for the problem of who decides what, and how we control it, it's not like we're going to fare any better with controlling CO2 emissions.

China and Russia will just laugh more at having the cheapest energy for their industry.

Whatever plan we make, simply ending the use of coal and oil isn't going to happen. Nobody has the authority to enforce it, and there's too much incentive for violating it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:00:20 2014 No.6637709

>>6637695
Cruise control for cool isn't going to change the definition of "explicit".

See, what you're arguing here is that it's IMplicit that the argument is meant to hold for increasing greenhouse gas concentrations by many times more than the mass of the atmosphere, but you're saying that it's EXplicit. When actually, it's just unreasonable to stretch what's being said to such an extreme.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:01:43 2014 No.6637712

>>6637698

>You don't have to predict decades in advance. You can adjust it as you go.

But of course you do. The changes that you make now will be felt decades in the future. And of course, you can't "adjust it as you go" when you don't know what the result of the adjustment will be. Playing global temperature ping-pong is even worse than global warming.

>it's not like we're going to fare any better with controlling CO2 emissions.

Well, everyone can at least agree what *should* be done. You don't even get that with with aerosols.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:04:36 2014 No.6637715 >>6637691 I was under the impression that the gas itself worked to reflect sunlight. I was wrong, I'll admit that. Regardless, you're an asswipe.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:05:14 2014 No.6637716

>>6637709

The level of GHG concentration makes no difference in that model beyond a certain point. If you actually bothered to understand how the model works, you would know that when they say "unlimited" it's not an "incautious turn of phrase" it's precisely what the model shows. There is no "but if you add really a lot it will be different" in the model.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:08:25 2014 No.6637722

>>6637712
>The changes that you make now will be felt decades in the future.
In what sense, exactly? If you put the aerosol up now, it will be completely cleared from the atmosphere within the decade.

Since you're messing with the amount of light that reaches the Earth's surface, the effect will be prompt. You can try a small amount, see what it does, and then put up a little more or wait for some to fall out before pumping a maintenance dose up there.

How is this going to be felt decades in the future, in the worrisome sense that you're implying?

>everyone can at least agree what *should* be done.
You think Russia and Australia are going to agree on the proper trade-off between cheap power and global warming?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:09:00 2014 No.6637723

>>6637715

In other words, you were advocating for something you barely understand. Is this really something a responsible citizen should do? And someone who posts on /sci/, of all places? Oh, and by the way, didn't *you* say that *I* know nothing about the subject? And now I'm an asswipe?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:13:54 2014 No.6637732

>>6637722
>If you put the aerosol up now, it will be completely cleared from the atmosphere within the decade.

But the effects of it won't be. This isn't some placebo, dude. This is chemotherapy.

>You can try a small amount, see what it does,

No you can't, because a small effect will be lost in the noise. You need to go full balls for at least a decade to see if the basic idea is even correct. Of course, that won't tell you how exactly this will affect climate in the coming decades.

>You think Russia and Australia are going to agree on the proper trade-off between cheap power and global warming?

Everybody agrees that we should limit Co2 emissions, the disagreement is how to do it. With aerosols, you won't even have an agreement whether they should go up or down, or whether they should be used at all.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:14:32 2014 No.6637734

>>6637716
>There is no "but if you add really a lot it will be different" in the model.
That doesn't mean the model is intended to be applied to scenarios where you add "really a lot". There are lots of simplified, practical models that work fine in their intended range of applicability, but go all wonky if you take them to extremes.

If you're going to claim "wrong because Venus", show me where someone says it's supposed to apply to Venus-like extremes.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:15:37 2014 No.6637737

>>6637723
I didn't know about that particular scheme, admittedly. I oversimplified it.

However, you were shitposting and dismissing the viability entirely right here:

>>6637600

And you're still doing so. Having reservations and calling every attempt at climate control a terrible idea are two completely separate things.

I called you an asswipe because you were being an asswipe in your little preface here:
>>6637691

Also, you should really do something about that aspergers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:18:58 2014 No.6637746 >>6637734 Ok, for the last time. Could you please explain how the "Venus effect" is supposed to kick in with the saturation model?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:22:13 2014 No.6637748

>>6637737
>shitposting

Those are perfectly valid objections. Note that it's kind of difficult for you to argue against them when you have no idea how the scheme is supposed to work, so... why are you even trying? Do you think that your insults shall carry the day instead?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:23:04 2014 No.6637749 >>6637737 >I oversimplified it. Or rather you don't even understand it in the first place. Calling people names lowers will lower your arguments standing as well.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:26:30 2014 No.6637754

>>6637732
>>If you put the aerosol up now, it will be completely cleared from the atmosphere within the decade.
>But the effects of it won't be.
What does that even mean? Be specific.

>You need to go full balls for at least a decade to see if the basic idea is even correct.
We're not talking about using it today to erase the barely-detectable and practically-insignificant warming so far. We're talking about using it to stop the specific unwanted warming-related effects we're opposed to, such as Greenland melting.

The whole "we have to do something!" argument about global warming is that its effects are going to become distinctly unsubtle at some point.

>Everybody agrees that we should limit Co2 emissions
Uh... China and Russia agree that "we" (not counting them) should limit CO2 emissions so they'll get a leg-up on industry while we're bogged down with going carbon neutral.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:29:18 2014 No.6637758 >>6633894 Are you literally retarded?

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:30:44 2014 No.6637762

>>6637746
>>That doesn't mean the model is intended to be applied to scenarios where you add "really a lot". There are lots of simplified, practical models that work fine in their intended range of applicability, but go all wonky if you take them to extremes.
>Ok, for the last time. Could you please explain how the "Venus effect" is supposed to kick in with the saturation model?
Do you promise it's for the last time? Because I don't see how repeating the "but Venus!" argument is at all relevant or productive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:32:49 2014 No.6637765 >>6633717 if you don't like xkcd, you probably don't enjoy science. it's a comic tailor made for people who are interested in science, technology, and engineering.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:35:25 2014 No.6637768
File: 259 KB, 449x449, 1402637801631.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6637765
>who are interested in science, technology, and engineering.
And then there are those that actually do it and understand it's not this oversimplified yammer as portrayed by popular culture.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:35:36 2014 No.6637769

>>6637754
>What does that even mean? Be specific.

You change precipitation patterns, deplete ozone, increase ocean acidification etc. Some of the changes will reverse quickly (e.g. air circulation), some not so much (marine life).

>We're not talking about using it today to erase the barely-detectable and practically-insignificant warming so far. We're talking about using it to stop the specific unwanted warming-related effects we're opposed to, such as Greenland melting.

Greenland has been melting for decades. Please do not add your ignorance of the impacts of global warming into the discussion.

>Uh... China and Russia agree that "we" (not counting them) should limit CO2 emissions so they'll get a leg-up on industry while we're bogged down with going carbon neutral.

Now imagine how they would cooperate with the aerosols.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:39:53 2014 No.6637774

>>6637762

You did not answer my question. Why did you not answer my question? Because you don't understand the model. You don't understand it because you have no idea what this whole greenhouse saturation thing is about. You're defending something you haven't even bothered to read up on. Of course the argument is not productive, how could it be? This whole time, I've been trying to convince to you read about the stuff we're discussing. But you're apparently above that. Yes, it was for the last time.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:40:32 2014 No.6637775

>>6637749
I said I was wrong. By oversimplified, I mean that I was under the impression that it was a direct relationship between SO2 and reflected light rather than it being a secondary effect caused by the formation of aerosols.

My argument's standing was lowered when I had a misconception about the nature of it, and I do not retract calling him an asswipe.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:46:11 2014 No.6637781

>>6637769
>You change precipitation patterns, deplete ozone, increase ocean acidification etc.
I'll buy the ozone depletion, but ocean acidification is kind of a joke. We're not talking about quantities that large. I'm not really going for the precipitation patterns claim, either.

>Greenland has been melting for decades.
Greenland has been melting for millennia, along with all of the other big glaciers left over from the last ice age. Don't be a dick. We're worried that it will melt fast and completely.

>Now imagine how they would cooperate with the aerosols.
Reminder: whether we choose to use it will not stop them from using it if they decide to.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:55:37 2014 No.6637795

>>6637781
>We're not talking about quantities that large.

Orly? What quantities are we talking about?

>I'm not really going for the precipitation patterns claim, either.

Anything that impacts the global energy balance and cloud formation will affect the precipitation patterns. You're just showing your own ignorance here.

>Greenland has been melting for millennia, along with all of the other big glaciers left over from the last ice age.

There wasn't actually much change in the glacier runoff in the past millennium or so (judging by the sea levels) until recently.

>whether we choose to use it will not stop them from using it if they decide to.

Local aerosol injection will not be effective.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:56:18 2014 No.6637798

>>6637774
>You did not answer my question. Why did you not answer my question?
Already explained. The "but Venus!" argument was never a good one.

>This whole time, I've been trying to convince to you read about the stuff we're discussing.
No, this whole time, you've been trying to argue that it can all be boiled down to "Don't they know about the greenhouse effect?" and "but Venus!", while I've been arguing that complex and subtle issues are involved.

Remember that? How this conversation actually started?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 01:59:09 2014 No.6637801 >>6637795 >Local aerosol injection will not be effective. The stratosphere is very windy. When you put this stuff up, it stays up for years. Put two and two together.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 02:02:50 2014 No.6637809

>>6637798

>while I've been arguing that complex and subtle issues are involved.

You've been handwaving. You were forced to make stuff up because you are not familiar with the issue. You don't know how the greenhouse saturation actually works, so you were forced to pretend that it says something else than it actually does. Since I've given up hope of making you actually read about the issue, I'm not really sure how there can be any productive discussion at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 02:03:57 2014 No.6637811 >>6637801 Yes, if you put it high enough, it stays for years. But does it stay (or go) where you want it to? No.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 02:09:00 2014 No.6637821 >>6637811 As long as it's still in the upper-atmosphere it would work to some degree, would it not?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 11 02:12:25 2014 No.6637827 >>6637821 Well, of course it would work, but to have a global effect, you need global distribution. You can't achieve that from one place. And you can't have a local effect at all, because the aerosols will not stay put.

Anonymous Fri Jul 11 18:42:35 2014 No.6639015
File: 197 KB, 294x256, 1404486176561.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

XKCD has recently entered my list of Things-I-Used-To-Be-Passionate-About-That-I-Secretly-Loathe

Sometimes his comics are good, but most of the time I just want to fucking stare disappointingly at Randall.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 12 10:39:41 2014 No.6639951 >>6633708 lol at calling a 4.5C change an IAU. I'm a geologist, but I took a few classes in glacial geology, this guy is way the fuck off base.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math