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.
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.
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.
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.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You're a god damn fool. If all of this is poppycock but we still act, there isn't much of a problem. If it isn't poppycock and we don't act then the results could be catastrophic. I'd rather we err in the side of caution only a fool would choose to do otherwise.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
I think his is lead and he's been chewing on it for far too long.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
| 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.
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.
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.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
You're right. When an uneducated radio preacher starts sermonizing about the end of the world and for evidence holds up a book written by a bunch of ignorant stone age goat herders, we Atheists go off our rocker because it's an amoral shitshow. Especially when the key question gets asked which is "Okay, so what should we do?" and the answer is to mumble to ourselves... I see that person as an idiot charlatan and treat them accordingly.
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!"
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
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
Relax. Although the submitter's write-up uses the binding "will", the actual paper 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 and thus non-scientific. Consequently, any "scientists" using them in a supposedly "scientific" article is a con-artist...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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
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?
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
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.
Achille Talon
Hop!
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.