Slashdot Mirror
We Had All Better Hope These Scientists Are Wrong About the Planet's Future (washingtonpost.com)
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.
impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I just wish all the climate deniers would start building houses at the ocean's edge.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
LOL, so fucking easy to disprove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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.
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 all their press release announcements of past years completely invalid. If they say "Nth warmest year on record " this year they'll have it readjusted 5 years down the line to be "Nth-10 warmest year on record", because they goal is to perpetually keep the current year as hot as possible and the past be damned. If he was a historician then Donald Trump would have started the Iraq war during his last presidency. It's all ideologically oriented fiction and no fact nowadays.
Feel free to check their press release archives yourself, the at-release graphs are included in them. But I'm sure you have some mental gymnastics ready to explain why the data is reliable despite changing appearance through statistical retconning every third year on average.
You disproved nothing.
He's been arrested FOR PROTESTING A HUGE OIL PIPELINE ACROSS THE US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's not an activist. That's someone who puts their money where their mouth is.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Looks like St. ALGORE is a denier then: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
[wipes away tear] St. Gore's sacrifices for the cause are just so inspiring!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
They were solved because the solutions were easy- eliminate CFCw and put scrubbers on smokestacks.
Eliminating carbon as a fuel source world wide is not. There is nothing really different now about people in this regard.
love is just extroverted narcissism
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. Even more specifically, we limited the amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide going into the air.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You make a prediction based on your model. The prediction fails to match reality. Do you A. accept that you were wrong and update your model, or B. double down and insult everyone who told you there were huge problems with your model?
Pathetic I have to explain science to you at this level.
So by your logic if somebody holds degrees they can't be an activist? Riiight. I've got a masters, I considered going for a PhD, but decided that it wasn't worth it. There were too many idiots working on their PhDs and I didn't feel like I could stomach the politics (this coming from a guy who spent 6 years in the worst of corporate politics before starting school, also as a note to those who want to say I just couldn't hack it, my masters GPA was 3.940, thesis based). Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that all PhDs are idiots, just that it's not an area that's immune to them. You can usually filter them out in a similar way to the normal population. Do they make ridiculous claims which time and time again never come true? Then they might be an idiot.
I've said it time and time again to those who put scientists on some plinth, yet nobody does it. Pick up a journal in an area you have expertise in. Read a few of the papers written by scientists in areas you know and tell me how often you're left just thinking "holy shit that guy is full of shit, how did this get published?". Now realize that all areas of science have a similar problem. You want even more depressing, read up on how often papers are later retracted. Just because somebody is a scientist with a PhD and everything doesn't actually mean they're competent, it just means they put in the time to get the piece of paper. If they say something that sounds unbelievable and their predictions are always wrong, I ask why do you keep believing them?
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
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there is an infinite amount of oil,
We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks. We won't stop using oil for fuel because we ran out of oil.
Oh, sure, some historian looking back a century from now will be able to point to a "peak", but no one will care. The Peak Oil Nutters are predicting the collapse of civilization as we know it, not "usage naturally went down at some point because no one wanted any".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
1000 runs and a 1000 different outcomes.
I believe this is called a Monte Carlo Analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
You decry people not objectively studying this topic in a post about someone objectively studying this topic. Not to mention the countless people who have studied this ad infinitum over the decades. You're not a skeptic, you're a cynic. You can't simply dislike the findings of a paper and denounce it as subjective - science doesn't work that way. Write your paper tearing his apart and get it over with.