We Had All Better Hope These Scientists Are Wrong About the Planet's Future (washingtonpost.com) 618
Less than 24 hours since we read this dire climate study, an anonymous reader writes from a Washington Post report about several more concerning things: James Hansen, a former NASA scientist, says his new study suggests the impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned. The research invokes collapsing ice sheets, violent megastorms and even the hurling of boulders by giant waves in its quest to suggest that even 2 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels would be far too much. Hansen has called it the most important work he has ever done. "I think almost everybody who is really familiar with both paleo and modern is now very concerned that we are approaching, if we have not passed, the points at which we have locked in really big changes for young people and future generations," Hansen said.
What else is new? (Score:4, Funny)
So what? After all, we've hit peak oil and the population bomb has already gone off. We are literally lifting people in frontloaders out of the way and Soylent Green is people. This is just a drop in the bucket with all the disasters that have already befallen us that were correctly predicted in the 1970s. It doesn't seem like there will be a humanity left to even care by the time Earth has turned into Venus.
Now, excuse me, I need to go out in my gas mask and radiation gear to go salvage vacuum tubes from the ruins of civilization so I can keep my mainframe working in this post-apocalyptic world.
Re: (Score:3)
We haven't hit peak oil yet. Every publication I read in the 80's and 90's predicted a peak of cheap oil in the 2040's to 2050's.
We are well on the way to that. After that cheap oil goes away and 100+ a barrel will be the normal. At the same time we will have a 50 million Muslims who haven't really had to work suddenly finding themselves without income, very angry, and armed to the teeth. (90% of Saudi doesn't really work but lives off government oil handouts).
that should scare you
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ignore peak oil, you've hit the real problem: large intelligent, underemployed, and underfunded populations.
Thanks to basic math, it's happening already with the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Up to a point, populations grow exponentially (S-curves rather than real exponential curves). When the Sauds took over, they were essentially a small tribe with a leader and a few princes. Fast forward a number of generations, and guess what, now you still have one leader but tens of thousands of princes (ever wonder why so many people have met Saudi princes? there happen to be many of them).
I had the privilege of working with a prince during a stint in the Kingdom. This was his biggest concern for their future: the royal family was too large and budget could not keep up with the cost of the entitlements. And, unlike welfare recipients in America, these really were entitled people. They all saw the previous generations living like, well, kings. They still do OK, but must live more modestly and are encouraged to work to supplement their income.
My friend was very concerned that most of the other princes would have difficulty transitioning and that the next generations (which, thanks again math, will be even larger) will have no social or economic system to fall back on.
Regardless of when peak oil happens, peak prince has already occurred.
-Chris
Re: (Score:3)
Peak Oil (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there is an infinite amount of oil, or that the production (biogenesis) of oil is greater than or equal to demand? Because otherwise, isn't "peak oil" a mathematical certainty? Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:3)
especially when we have a century and a half supply of "proven" reserves of coal and can make any average length hydrocarbon we want out of it. Kerosoene, gasoline, diesel fuel, paraffin wax, natural gas...no problem for generations. burn baby burn
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, you should have just asked, sweetie. I've been investing in peak oil for years. Can't wait for this current trough to spike back up and make me some sweet sweet cash. Hope your snark keeps you warm at night!
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
You will see for gas and oil, there is a bit more than half century of oil and gas left in proven reserves. Yes, there is still new oil and gas to discover, however, these reserves are expensive, difficult, not energy efficient to exploit.
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, "what else is new"? Certainly not the actual words of the summary, which are basically a few sentences taken verbatim from the Washington Post article.
I know complaining about editing is usually pointless. But...
an anonymous reader writes from a Washington Post report about several more concerning things:
... is simply NOT accurate. The anonymous reader didn't write "from" the Washington Post. He/she didn't write anything, but instead cobbled together a few sentences which were written by Washington Post reporter Chris Mooney.
If you want to take a summary verbatim from TFA, at least credit the words to the person who actually wrote them, rather than an AC.
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was an actual, serious problem, and still is, but is not getting worse because the planet took concerted action to fix it.
Acid rain didn't just "go away" either spontaneously, it slowed significantly because humans, back then, actually listened to scientists and were less aggressively selfish and stupid than regarding global warming.
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Informative)
Eliminating carbon as a fuel source world wide is not. There is nothing really different now about people in this regard.
Re:What else is new? (Score:4, Interesting)
Eliminating carbon as a fuel source world wide is not. There is nothing really different now about people in this regard.
Once upon a time, Republicans believed that CO2 was an energy retaining gas. Now? Denial of science is a party platform.
Re:What else is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree, we can easily replace a large part of our carbon output by switching from coal power to nuclear power. We can make a further dent in this by using electric and natural gas for transportation. Only then does the problem become hard and returns diminish.
The hard part would be the relatively minor carbon output from aircraft and watercraft. Large ships could be powered from nuclear power plants on board like military ships are now. Smaller ships and aircraft could be powered by synthesized fuel (ammonia, liquid hydrogen, synthetic hydrocarbons, etc.) or we merely agree that the carbon output from these is worth the cost to the environment.
If natural gas is problematic in the long run then at least we can used natural gas as a transition and compromise since the carbon output compared to oil and coal is preferable to the status quo. The US Navy has shown that we can close the carbon loop with nuclear power and synthesizing aviation fuel (also suitable for turbine engines and diesel cycle engines) from sea water. When the fuel is burned it enters the atmosphere as CO2 and H2O, the same molecules from which the fuel was derived. No net carbon added.
Just like the transition away from CFCs and acid rain producing power plants this will take a long time. I suggest we start this transition with a speed and determination like we've never seen before. This nonsense of subsidies for ethanol, wind power, and solar panels is just feel good greenwashing, they don't hit the heart of the matter with any real results.
Re:What else is new? (Score:4, Informative)
Acid rain didn't just "go away" either spontaneously, it slowed significantly because humans, back then, actually listened to scientists and were less aggressively selfish and stupid than regarding global warming.
Specifically, we stopped doing stuff like this [pinimg.com]. Even more specifically, we limited the amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide going into the air.
Re:What else is new? (Score:4, Informative)
Meanwhile in Australia;
Two thirds of the population will be diagnosed with skin cancer by the time they are 70.
Over 434,000 people are treated for one or more non-melanoma skin cancers in Australia each year
Melanoma is the most common cancer in the 15-44 age group, and the third and forth most common cancer in women and men respectively.
Th incidence of skin cancer is one of the highest in the world, two to three times the rates in Canada, the US and the UK.
And this after massive public health initiatives over the last thirty years.
Re: (Score:3)
When I was in school there was constant hysteria over the ozone layer. By the year 2000 we were all supposed to be blind and dying of skin cancer because the ozone layer would be mostly gone.
And then we, you know, actually did something about it by banning CFC and so on. Now, things are better. I bet this is the kind of conversation you would have with your doctor:
Doctor: You know, if you don't stop drinking, you're going to die of liver failure.
[AC stops drinking] [3 years later, with no drinking:]
AC: See, doc! I didn't die of liver failure! Stupid doctor! You don't know anything!
The world is a wildly dynamic and chaotic place. Environmental trends can only be extrapolated so far before they become useless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take prudent steps to protect the environment, but all of this doomsday crap just gets tiring.
As other people have mentioned, try listening to the actual scientists. Listening to Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh
I don't understand the deniers (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to be a skeptic myself, so my reaction is far from panic, but this seems like something we should be studying very objectively. It's a shame so few people are capable of doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
It grabs headlines. That's why we have the media blaring as loudly as they can about every terrorist act they can. It's all so shocking, and therefor guaranteed to grab eyes and viewer share.
I'm not saying this guy is completely off base, but this reads like the script to The Day after Tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I can't disagree with that. From the paper: "It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."
I'm quite interested in whether the science is correct, but he's doing himself a disservice in veering into social and political effects. If he's right, then this would be a landmark paper without the alarmism. It's a difficult position to be in. If he's right, the alarmis
Re:I don't understand the deniers (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, some people can't tell the difference between "skepticism" and "wishful thinking". A true skeptic tends to doubt everything on an even-handed basis. A wishful thinker doubts things that would be unpleasant if they were true.
One thing an accomplished skeptic understands is that evidence for complicated real-world questions is always contradictory. This makes his job hard because he's got to judge which side of a question has the preponderance of evidence in its favor. On the other hand it makes the job of a wishful thinker easier, because there will always be evidence to support whatever he wishes to believe. All he has to do is cherry-pick.
One of the best exercises for a true skeptic is to spend a few hours with Google Scholar and tracing the shift in consensus from the 1950s, when most scientists thought the planet was entering a cooling phase, until the 2000s when the consensus was strongly in the other direction. This will dispel any notion that the consensus just changed overnight for no reason (or because of some kind of conspiracy). There was a thorough and vigorous debate with both sides represented.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Where have I ever said they're making it up? I challenge you to find it, and good luck to you. I'm pretty sure you'll never find it since I don't believe they're making it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe given the reaction I should clarify. I'm not skeptical that human generation of CO2 is causing global warming. There seems to be a solid consensus on that. I think ALL scientific papers should be read with a critical eye, not blind acceptance. Is Hansen right? I don't know, but it sure seems important to figure out. Doing so without preconceptions (and vitriol) would be good.
Re:I don't understand the deniers (Score:5, Interesting)
It's only effectively impossible for laypeople to study it objectively. Ideally, people who don't know anything about the subject would just remain silent.
No, it's both. I worked in cancer research for a long time. Yes, we wrote grants because we wanted to have a job next year. We also saw the patients in the clinic and were also motivated by hopefully keeping some people alive, or at least alive longer. Some of the people I worked with got into the field because cancer killed a family member. They weren't doing it for the just for the money.
We once got a grant from a corporation to see if $SUBSTANCE had a particular effect that would be useful in treating tumors. This was a while back, but the result was basically no. Nobody fudged the data. We just reported the results back. I don't think that particular study got published, not because there's a disincentive, but because journals aren't interested. The vast majority of substances at the vast majority of doses don't have any therapeutic effect on cancer. It's just not interesting or novel to announce that you've found substance #3,647,927,671 that also doesn't work.
Some people have made a good argument that negative studies should be made available, and I agree with that, but if they're not published, it's not because the researchers don't want them published. Most researchers want anything and everything publishable to be published, and they're disappointed when a study ends without a "publishable result".
Re: (Score:3)
By not starting with a preconception. That's the disappointing part of this debate. I see too many people who have no actual reason to believe one way or the other, but they're damn sure that they do.
Re:I don't understand the deniers (Score:4, Informative)
1000 runs and a 1000 different outcomes.
I believe this is called a Monte Carlo Analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is a very valuable means to analyze a complex system. I got to play with some circuit simulators in college that did this for analog circuitry. It can tell you how stable your system is or if it is sensitive to small changes to certain values.
I'm not a big believer in the global warming theory but I do see why people would run a simulation knowing that each and every run, even with the same input parameters, will give them a different result. If run enough times with a good random number generator and you can get some valuable statistical data.
Good read (Score:3)
Why should we hope they are wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
The planet will kill off all of the humans and then get back to its regularly scheduled program. We're just a glitch.
Some perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
It's worth noting that this is just one paper, and some reservations about this paper have been expressed by peers:
Michael Mann, a Penn State university climate scientist familiar with the original study, commented, “Near as I can tell, the issues that caused me concern originally still remain in the revised manuscript. Namely, the projected amounts of meltwater seem unphysically large, and the ocean component of their model doesn’t resolve key wind-driven current systems (e.g. the Gulf Stream) which help transport heat poleward. That makes northern hemisphere temperatures in their study too sensitive to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning ocean circulation,” the scientific name for the ocean circulation in the Atlantic that, the study suggests, could shut down.
However, another Penn State researcher, glaciologist Richard Alley, said by email that “though this is one paper, it usefully reminds us that large and rapid changes are possible, and it raises important research questions as to what those changes might mean if they were to occur. But, the paper does not include enough ice-sheet physics to tell us how much how rapidly is how likely.
Re: (Score:2)
However, another Penn State researcher, glaciologist Richard Alley, said by email that “though this is one paper, it usefully reminds us that large and rapid changes are possible...
Is that the same "usefully" as "useful idiot"? Or perhaps never letting a crisis go to waste? It's "useful" to the extent that it can scare people into acting beyond what the argument has reasonably shown the case to be.
Screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously. If Slashdot, of all places, can't have a reasonable conversation about the science behind this topic without the deniers dominating the discussion then there really is no hope. We should just defund any climate research and put all that money into coal and oil discovery and extraction research. Game over. Why delay the end point? It's not like there's any political will to do anything serious about it anyway.
Political Will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot has more scientifically literate people than alot of other sites, but its been dominated by American right-wing grievance politics for a awhile now, and its only getting more extreme.
These global warming threads have been a bell weather for the site's decline. If you read one for each year going back, you see would see more intelligent comments and less denial the further back you go.
This place used to be for college-age computer geeks and STEM majors, now its for middle-aged Trump voters.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's just the same guys making the same arguments, refuted every time. e.g. Mr "climate model predictions don't correlate to actual temperatures,
erroneous conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Hansen's paper referred to in this article, it tries to make a case for the dangers of climate change by looking for analogues for current climate change in the past. But he clearly starts out with the goal of showing that climate change is very dangerous and then tries to concoct scenarios and fit observations to reach that conclusion. Hansen is not objective anymore, and his papers and conclusions are not credible anymore.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
Re: (Score:2)
The first study just argued that carbon release was faster than during the PETM. But what the PETM really tells you is that even very fast releases of carbon and temperatures 10-12C higher than today don't seem to be particularly harmful to land animals. It is, of course, possible that even faster releases of carbon are more harmful, but the first study provides no new evidence that they are.
We are not just any land animal, we are human.
If the sea level rise, animals will just move to slightly higher ground, they don't have huge cities to move. A massive storm will kill a few individuals and damage vegetation but it will have no home to destroy. Kill 50% of an animal population and it will just regrow in a couple generations as long as the habitat is preserved, humans too but animals don't make a big deal out of it.
Re:erroneous conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
No, that's wrong.
While the battle to decrease fossil fuel use was lost before it had begun-- for the reason you cite-- there are personal and public reasons for calling your position a "heads up the ass" posture:
Personally, if Hansen et al might be right, then it would be prudent to NOT investment your retirement savings in that condominium project in south Florida. Multiply you by all the potential investors, and that is going to affect real estate values, today. Not years later, but today.
Publicly, if Hansen might be right, then opposing the ballot measure to fund a ten year multi-million dollar project for waterfront improvements would make a lot of sense, since that waterfront might well be submerged before the work has paid for itself.
There are serious right-now, today and not tomorrow, reasons for thoroughly studying what Hansen and the other experts are warning about.
Frankly, it seems to be a matter of whether you consider the distant future to be when you are twenty or thirty years older than you now are. Or whether to you the distant future is the year after next year. Your position is consistent with the view of a younger person who regards a decade as a third or more of the life that he has so far lived, and has no concept of responsibility for decisions that will affect your kids' and grandkids' lives. Short-sighted. Git offa m' lawn!
I know the solution (Score:2)
Well, seeing as the case is now a genuine emergency, I know what we can do. Let's give the radical Left everything it's been asking for for decades, right now, without any debate or voting or any of that old-fashioned crap that only randomly results in positive outcomes. Let's make the decision now and get rid of capitalism once and for all, in the West anyway, and implement a fair system by which we'll be ruled by highly intelligent elites that will put all of society's resources in a basket and then sha
Re: (Score:3)
Let's make the decision now and get rid of capitalism once and for all, in the West anyway, and implement a fair system by which we'll be ruled by highly intelligent elites that will put all of society's resources in a basket and then share them out fairly for all.
That sounds like an improvement over the current system where we're ruled by highly rich elites.
yet, the far right will ignore and far left will.. (Score:3)
I applaud Dr. Hansen and his work, but hate his followers are just as unscientific as the far right.
locked and loaded (Score:2)
Hope? (Score:2)
Ever heard the phrase "There is no hope!" ?
Seriously - have you made ever a count, how many time your hope was working out or it failed...
Hoping creates contemplacy, delays action and hinders rationality - just look at the actual odds of winning Powerball. Doing it consoles, gives hope despite the fact that the odds are something like 1 : 11 Million. That's how human mind functions and gets fooled.
Our planet is not a powerball lottery to use hope for future human and environmental decent existence.
Saw Neil deGrasse Tyson speak last night... (Score:2)
Nuclear power, NOW! (Score:4, Interesting)
We need nuclear power. We, as Americans need to be building a new nuclear power plant (with about 1GW capacity) every week. We, as humans, need to be building a nuclear power plant every day. We need to do this from now until we replace all coal and natural gas power plants, and then keep going to replace the nuclear power plants that we'd retire in 40 years. At some point we'd likely have to build them at an even faster pace to account for an increasing population and/or an improved standard of living.
To those of you that think we could never build such complex machines at such a pace I say look at the numbers of commercial jet aircraft or oil tankers built in a year, they are comparable to a nuclear power plant in size, cost, and complexity and we mass produce them. To those that think we'd create some sort of radiation hazard, well we can address the comparatively small problem of disposing of radioactive waste or we can deal with the problem of oceans rising, super storms, and so on. I'd also maintain that the problem of nuclear waste has been solved already, we'd just need to build reactors that can both produce power and consume the waste we have now.
To those that believe we can solve this problem with wind and solar I say these technologies produce less than 5% of grid power now after decades of government subsidized research and development. Nuclear power now produces 20% of our grid power and we've not built a new nuclear power plant in 40 years. Even if we built those same 50 year old designs today then we'd still be a century ahead of what wind and solar can do. If we build truly modern nuclear power plants, and mass assemble them, then we'd be able to bring costs down below that of any other power source based on economies of scale alone.
To those that think nuclear power is the path to nuclear annihilation I say there is no better way to make nuclear weapons worthless than to make them more valuable as fuel than as a weapon of war. A large problem of dismantling these nuclear warheads is that we'd have to find a way to make the nuclear fuel inert. We can make it inert by neutron bombardment in a reactor, and we'd get effectively free energy from it. The cost of mining and refining this uranium and plutonium is a sunk cost, we can power the world for a very long time on these warheads alone and in the mean time go out and dig up some more fuel in the form of uranium and thorium. With breeder reactors we'd have an effectively limitless supply of fuel.
Don't build the reactors on fault lines, or places known to have tsunamis, but put them on solid bedrock in the middle of a desert and use high temperature air cooled reactors so the lack of water is not only not a problem but makes containment in the case of a spill or leak much easier. In a dry place the radioactive material is much less likely to wash away, contaminate drinking water, or irradiate crops.
If this doomsday scenario is true, and I DO NOT believe that it is, then we need to do something about it now and quickly. We can hope these scientists are wrong and keep burning coal and oil, we can continue to maintain our standard of living free of global warming with nuclear power, or we can revert to a life of subsistence farming and beasts of burden where life is poor, brutal, and short.
Scientists, give up. They need to be SHOWN. (Score:2)
I said it in another post, but enough data has been provided. If non-scientists/engineers/skeptics/ideologues don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Nobody believes the data because they don't trust the source of the data, the people drawing the conclusions and they need to *visually* see the conclusions drawn in action. Merely showing models is not enough.
Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat...
Consider the Source! (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly this study is complete biased nonsense. Look at the institutions at which these supposed scientists work.
Columbia University, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, NASA Goddard, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of California Irvine, Western Carolina University, University of Toulon.
Each one is some garbage degree factory with no scientific rigor whatsoever.
hehe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's just another bullshit Rothschilds Scam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He is an activist, he's been arrested when participating in protests.
Depending on your definition of charlatan he qualifies for that too, he also earns A LOT of money as a doomspeaker at various climate events(and did so during his NASA career even though he wasn't allowed to under the public employment contract but I digress).
During his time at GISS he also set the wonderful standard of retroactively editing their own climate record through sweeping changes in adjustment methodology which have pretty much
Re:Scientist? You mean activist (Score:4, Informative)
He's been arrested FOR PROTESTING A HUGE OIL PIPELINE ACROSS THE US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That's not an activist. That's someone who puts their money where their mouth is.
leftist universities (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:leftist universities (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that most others on the right also cringe at these remarks.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, are you kidding? Everyone on the right believes what that guy said. It's not just some small portion of the American population that believes in climate change denialism, it's probably about half, maybe more.
One of the big problems I see with liberals (and I say this as someone who generally agrees with most liberal ideas) is that they frequently refuse to see and believe just how prevalent certain beliefs are among certain populations. They have an almost religious belief that most people are good, peaceful people who are interested in the welfare of all, and they tend to ignore humanity's darker sides, and not see how many people really aren't good or peaceful and who are entirely selfish, sociopathic, or intent on doing harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Not "will" -- "could" (Score:4, Insightful)
Relax. Although the submitter's write-up uses the binding "will", the actual paper [atmos-chem-phys.net] is about as firm as the (in)famous Geico commercial. The one about 15 minutes, that could save you 15%. Or more...
It is safer that way — when the time comes and the mongered fear does not materialize, the "researchers" can shrug and offer you some new and improved fears to worry about without having to explain their past mistakes. "We never said it will happen, only that it could."
Pedantically speaking, such statements are not falsifiable [wikipedia.org] and thus non-scientific [ehow.com]. Consequently, any "scientists" using them in a supposedly "scientific" article is a con-artist...
Re: (Score:3)
That's some sweet source you got there.
Re: (Score:2)
So to you "may be gone" somehow equals "will be gone"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, this article is from a scientist, who's been studying atmospheres for years.
The video is from Al Gore.
And you equate them? And then try to pretend *I* can't think critically?
Dude, you better pick a day to stop sniffing glue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The general public does not make a distinction, and their votes will be needed for any serious effort to address climate change. Shrill alarmism forecasting global catastrophe is counter productive, because when it is later debunked, it reduces the credibility of all climate scientists. The 2007 IPCC report did immeasurable harm to climate change efforts, and this report appears to be making similar exaggerations.
Re: Will be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A variation on Pascal's Wager?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
and take your own future into your own hands, and stop expecting everyone else to fix things for you
Moving away from what we do wrong is far more complicated than 1 person. Government regulations have worked in the past to solve "DOOMSDAY" issues such as the depleting ozone layer. The refrigerants damaging the ozone were reduced and eventually removed due to government regulations. That was a very liberal thing to do and you can thank them for it. There are plenty of other examples.
The current governments appear more dedicated than they've ever been with regards to global warming. This tells me change is
Re: Will be? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why AGW pseudo-skeptics are like Creationists. No matter how many times you demonstrate some meme they brainlessly repeat was never true, they just turn around and make the same claim again. You simply cannot debate someone who is so divorced from reality that they think some slogan they picked up off a Heartland-funded website somehow falsifies an entire scientific discipline.
Re: (Score:2)
You simply cannot debate someone who is so divorced from reality that they think some slogan they picked up off a Heartland-funded website somehow falsifies an entire scientific discipline.
Now that's funny!
Re: (Score:2)
"No." Would have sufficed. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I am waiting for media outlets to give real probabilities, for science.
It isn't like we are not use to it. In terms of pulling we see that 5% error rate and understand statistical ties.
Just tell us the actual science results and predictions with its error percentages and standard deviations.
Re: Will be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science means discussing things with people who disagree who actually have the vaguest fucking idea what it is that is being discussed. Science isn't about scientists debating with morons on the Internet, and pretending that their pseudo-skepticism is even in the tiniest way a real critique of the theory.
Or perhaps you imagine that advocates of the Electric Universe or Young Earth Creationism somehow just automatically deserve a pedestal because they have enough neural wiring to make any old claim against established science.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The climate is changing. The vast majority of scientists are not debating that point. IF it is man made, we may have an opp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just wish all the climate deniers would start building houses at the ocean's edge.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of idiot does that anyway? You don't need global warming to be hit by a plain old hurricane or flood.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people buy oceanfront property. Once enough rich people have soggy feet, I have the feeling that they are going to demand that something be done with other people's money to fix the problem (even if it's just bailing out FEMA's flood insurance account after it gets drained buying out all their now-worthless million dollar homes).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like St. ALGORE is a denier then: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
[wipes away tear] St. Gore's sacrifices for the cause are just so inspiring!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since methodological naturalism didn't really exist until the end of the Middle AGes, there were no scientists in 400BC.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Pythagoras said it was round in 500BC. And proved it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's an activist (Score:4, Informative)
LOL, so fucking easy to disprove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[9] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[10]
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[11] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[12]
From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
As of 2014, Hansen directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[13] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So the fuck what. That's like saying that Osama Bin Laden wasn't a terrorist because he came from a rich family and got a degree in Civil Engineering.
Re:He's an activist (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, GGP said not a scientist. GP said he has several science degrees, including stuying the atmosphere, and you said 'so what'?
No wonder you believe what you believe.
Re:The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He's the one that's happy, so why kill himself? He's actually worth something.
If you want people dead, start with *you*.
Re: (Score:2)
Said no one ever...
Grammar 101 -> Don't place words in quotes unless they are quotes otherwise you just may be a crackpot.
Re: (Score:3)
The sky is always falling for the doom-and-gloom crowd.
"If we leave these caves we're all going to die! Lions will eat us all!" "Fire is dangerous! It'll kill us all!" "Cooking meat releases chemicals that will kill us!" "Growing plants ourselves? That's certain death!" "If we stay in one place we'll all die!" "Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
Geez, so many straw men in such a short post! I didn't even think that was possible.
Re: The global warming hoax... (Score:3)
Cultural Marxism certainly doesn't exist. Climate change is another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Mister Anonymous Coward, I would like to quote Bowerick Wowbagger, however you have most likely already be visited by him. Therefore, I skip it. Do you even know what "cultural marxism" means or is it something you just call people, like a two year old who has learned the word bitch.
http://www.wowbagger.com/insul... [wowbagger.com]
For your shame word, here is a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:OK Atheists: Religion is temporarily approved! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, when a scientist says "We're fucked and here's why..." and then plops down 50 years worth of climate data showing there's a direct correlation between our use of fossil fuels, the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in ocean level, ambient ocean temperature and acidification of the oceans. Moreover when other scientists look at different data sets and corroborate those findings. I generally take these person seriously, giant boulder hurling hyperbole aside.
I presume your reference to the preacher is to Harold Camping... Note is apology is laughable at best.
Scientists speak without certainty because they work in a world where new evidence can change their world view. The religious nuts speak with certainty because no evidence, however good can change their beliefs.
As for magical government regulations, you lost me on that. I'm yet to see scientists come out and say "Phew, good thing we passed that carbon tax or we'd all be screwed by now!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This always hurts my head, when people point out the change from "Global Warming" to "climate change". Do you know WHY it was changed? Because virtually no one understands the term "Global Warming". Everyone assumes it means everywhere is getting hotter, so *any* weather event short of a drought is used to refute the problem.
"Global Warming" is still an apt term, if one understands that it implies that more energy is being put into the system ( or perhaps being retained ). I far prefer that phrase to "C
Re:OK Atheists: Religion is temporarily approved! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pedantics aside, it'd be helpful if these folks would stop running around claiming the sky is falling unless/until it actually IS falling.
The problem is once we reach the point where the sky is actually falling it's far too late to do much about it. There are no instant fixes to the anthropogenic global warming problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted.
However, this Chicken Little PR campaign is only working against their interests. You want to know the origins of Climate Change Deniers? It's not political; the GOP is only capitalizing on public sentiment. It comes from, and is fueled by, failed prediction after failed prediction to the point where we could have iron clad, easy to understand proof that the world will end tomorrow and no one would believe it. It's gone on long enough, in fact, that we could have LA and SF under 100 ft of water,
Re:OK Atheists: Religion is temporarily approved! (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation needed. Could you please point me to the "failed prediction after failed prediction" you're talking about?
Last I saw, global temperatures were doing an excellent job tracking predictions made over the last 40 years. Ditto for sea level rise, which is actually happening a bit faster than most scientists had predicted.
Let me hazard a guess: you don't really pay much attention to scientists to find out what they're saying. If you did, you'd find that most of their predictions are cautious and very carefully qualified. Instead, you listen pundits who like to rant about the "Doomsday Predictions!!!! of the Scientists!!! who say we're all about to die!!! Who do they think we are???? We know better than to believe that."
Am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if a scientist would publish a paper that basically said: It's all good, no worries, we've got everything under control. Nobody would talk about that, and the funding would be cut. So there always has to be some kind of catastrophe lurking just around the corner, so these people will stay employed.
There's lots of atmospheric research to do, even if there was no global warming. Climate science does not have to be about doom and gloom. It's just that this is where we are. Lots and lots of other research is funded just fine without any doom and gloom scenarios. You simply don't hear about them since the research keeps trudging along as usual. You only hear about this because it is something that directly affects us all.
Anyway, you really are just like the anti-evolution crowd who claim that evoluti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the consequences don't stop compounding. Certainly we have committed ourselves to further warming at this point even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today. The system will take time to reach its new warmer equilibrium. That means we may already have committed to exceed the 2 Celsius limit that we are trying to avoid. This is especially likely considering last month's global mean temperature anomaly was already 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/ [slate.com]