Slashdot Mirror
Consensus On Consensus: Climate Experts Agree On Human-Caused Global Warming (theguardian.com)
mspohr quotes a report from The Guardian written by Dana Nuccitelli, environmental scientist and contributor to SkepticalScience.com: There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies -- including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, John Cook, [Dana Nuccitelli] and six of her colleagues -- have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are: 1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it's somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. 2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
This should be fun.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
That fixes it.
Global climate change is happening now with current negative results https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Happening-Now.aspx. Moreover, how would you feel if previous generations had taken your attitude about lead in gasoline or about the ozone layer because it wouldn't happen to be a problem for a few years?
That site is known to be a bit of an extreme one. Not the greatest source ever (but neither would I necessarily qoute WattsUpWithThat as a neutral source.) Fair is fair.
Denial much, guys? Do you work for coal/oil companies?
Those "small increases" bring much bigger problems in their wake. Floods, tornados, droughts, etc. It's only been a few decades and we're already seeing huge changes up here in Canada.
100% of cartographers used to believe that the Earth was flat. Consensus does not equal fact. Science is not determined by how popular an idea is. It is determined by hypothesis, experimentation and repeatable results. I understand the hypothesis in this case. What is not clear is what experimentation was done to prove the hypothesis and whether said results were repeatable.
Whether climate change is caused by mankind remains a theory at best.
A more accurate statement: 1. Over 90% of scientists think the Earth is more likely to be warming up than cooling down. Even skeptics usually agree with this. 2. Most of these scientists said humans had some sort of impact on the climate, but exactly how much was under debate. In fact, the consensus view at present is that the impact of CO2 is overestimated. Sources: IPCC using too many weasel words https://www.google.com/url?sa=... https://www.google.com/url?sa=... Sorry for the messy links.
"...the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014..."
That study was, at least in part, bogus. Several scientists listed as affirming human-caused global warming came out and said that their research was misrepresented by this study, and that they did not agree with the findings.
Don't take that as me denying it. Take it as me saying that the truth does not require you to lie on its behalf.
The earth is actually at the center of the universe.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Carbon caps are shit. 1% increases in efficiency here and there are shit.
This leaves a few options:
1. A tech breakthrough in energy production.
2. Massive decrease in energy consumption, meaning a loss of lifestyle for a couple billion people.
3. A stopgap until item 1 happens. This means nukes.
Why is it we are not afraid to dump tons of radioactive elements into the air from coal plants (dilute yes), not to mention the ash and slag? We are not afraid to blow mountains to bits to do this: http://explore.org/photos/6235..., but we are afraid to set aside areas for relatively safe plants and storage? WTF is wrong with us as a species where we will keep giving money to barbaric warlords for fossil fuels, but not invest in better sources? Who is responsible for the drumbeat of fear that prevents makes this our current reality?
Silence is a state of mime.
The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; adding more of it to the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to get warmer, and this is the primary driver of climate change from, say, 1900-2100. The greenhouse effect is undeniable, otherwise the Earth would be a very cold place. It's pretty damn certain that adding more greenhouse gases will cause warming. The problem is that the models (hypotheses of how Earth's climate system behaves) predict a much larger warming than has been observed. The models are run with a variety of emissions scenarios ranging from stopping virtually all carbon emissions (low end; little warming) to business as usual (high end; lots of warming). Our emissions have tracked at the high end of the range, yet temperatures are at the low end of the spread among models. While we're establishing records, they're not nearly as high as the models predict.
This should cause scientists to pause and ask why the observations don't support the hypothesis. If the models are right, the Earth should be a lot warmer than it currently is. Instead of trying to understand what's going on in the climate system, scientists have doubled down on the dire predictions. Scientists like Kevin Trenberth, a lead author on two IPCC reports and among NCAR's top brass, have been quick to blame many extreme weather events on climate, which contributes to people conflating weather and climate, not to mention it's not really supported by the science. Instead of trying to understand the climate system better, they've basically said, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! That's not science anymore. It's obsession, perhaps motivated by the realities of politics and funding.
Also, the consensus can be artificially manufactured. If you hold a skeptical view, no matter how well your opinion is supported by observations, it's certainly much harder to get jobs, funding, and publications. Basically, if you want a career in climatology, you pretty much have to believe global warming, even when the evidence isn't nearly that conclusive.
I'm not a denier nor a supporter, but this is bullshit. How about we have a good solid review of the facts and not a consensus of like-minded people. I personally believe that humans have an impact, but the percentage may be low based on previous figures that i have seen. Regardless, let me see some real data backed up by real science instead of this sensationalist bullshit.
Who cares if the experts agree. After all, they are not the politicians seeking to get elected/re-elected by saying the opposite while putting cash in their pockets from polluters.
they are selling this hard. I mean when Einstein's theory of relativity was in question, did they take a survey and consider the matter settled? I mean that took nearly 40 years to have experimental proof, and they want to put it to bed now?
The theory of (CO2 forced) climate change has been around for 150 years. For the first 120, it wasn't particularly controversial. I'm not sure why we would consider it particularly controversial now, random guys on the internet trolling the science notwithstanding. Mostly because this makes for more views if the media frames it as a controversy, rather than merely pointing out what we've known for a long time which is that CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate. Sorry.
The point of highlighting the consensus is to ensure that people who want to dispute the established science understand that they need to provide proof.
And most flat earthers can't provide evidence of same, which is why their narrative is based around conspiracy theory. Like anti-vaxxers, and climate denialists.
The meta-study is crap, plain and simple. It doesn't prove a damn thing. Whoever modded this down should be ashamed of themselves and shouldn't be allowed to moderate again.
Science doesn't operate on consensus. Science operates on the scientific method, hypotheses, theories, and laws. We don't advance science by taking votes on which hypothesis or theory is correct. We determine this by conducting experiments, which test hypotheses and theories. The observations can support or refute a theory or hypothesis.
It's not a motherfucking popularity contest. It's about whether observations support or refute the hypothesis.
Meta-studies are useless. They contribute nothing of value. If you want to make the case that humans are causing global warming, show how the data supports the hypothesis. That's it.
And by the way, it's often hard to get a job, get funded, or get published in any field when you hold an alternative view to something that most of the field believes strongly. That's not limited to climate science, it's just the way science is. If you want a successful career, you almost have to support the prevailing view in those fields. But it absolutely will bias the statistics in meta-studies like this. Whether they're right or wrong, climatologists who are skeptical of global warming have an inherent disadvantage in their field. That is why science should never be reduced to a popularity contest.
I'll say it again; meta-studies are fucking useless. Stick to hypotheses, theories, and observations. Those are the only things that make a damn bit of difference.
The problems don't start till 2100, and I'll be dead by then. Global warming is future people's problem, NOT mine!
This is the true consensus, exampled by humanity's action (or lack thereof.) I personally don't care what/who caused it, blaming is pointless. The fact nothing is changing to slow it down (if that's even possible at this point, science is still out on that) is all I really care about, and there's of course the 'I won't be around to see the effects.' thought too.
From the few articles I've read, it seems like even if we stopped all CO2 emissions this very instant, we're still in for some rough changes to the climate. So it's pretty easy to get on board with the 'future humans are fucked, no matter what, so why even care?' line of thought.
But again, blaming does nothing, it doesn't fix anything, it doesn't make positive changes. So just spinning our wheels doing 'science' to prove the science is right. How about some solutions people? And cutting emissions is not going to fly, we need a different solution than just cutting emissions, we're past the cutting emissions is gunna amount to much of anything. And it's never going to happen anyway, so solutions that work with the emissions are what is needed.
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
How many billions have been pledged with nothing to show for it? Someone's getting right off this. If you're not a part of the solution, there's a lot of money to be made prolonging the problem.
With or without humans the Earth's temperature will rise much higher and fall much lower over the ages -- as it always has.
The arrogant idiocy of those who think that this temperature range is perfect and will last indefinitely is fundamentally anti-scientific.
Why shouldn't England be tropical (again)? Who made these rules? Real estate owners?
The Earth's temperature isn't static and never was. Get over it.
Every Intelligent person knows that it is a redistribution plot. Yet many are ashamed to voice that in order not to be accused conspiracy theorists.
Every thinking person knows that humanity MIGHT be contributing to the climate change. We might.
However, the smartest scientists who are voicing Climate warming are also disgusted with the politicians attempts to monetize it.
Gee, you're a bright one, not being able to distinguish between general relativity and special relativity.
General relativity wasn't published until 1915, and per wiki-
The early accuracy, however, was poor. The results were argued by some[18] to have been plagued by systematic error and possibly confirmation bias, although modern reanalysis of the dataset[19] suggests that Eddington's analysis was accurate.[20][21] The measurement was repeated by a team from the Lick Observatory in the 1922 eclipse, with results that agreed with the 1919 results[21] and has been repeated several times since, most notably in 1953 by Yerkes Observatory astronomers[22] and in 1973 by a team from the University of Texas.[23] Considerable uncertainty remained in these measurements for almost fifty years, until observations started being made at radio frequencies. It was not until the 1960s that it was definitively accepted that the amount of deflection was the full value predicted by general relativity, and not half that number.[citation needed] The Einstein ring is an example of the deflection of light from distant galaxies by more nearby objects.
Einstein predicted the gravitational redshift of light from the equivalence principle in 1907, but it is very difficult to measure astrophysically (see the discussion under Equivalence Principle below). Although it was measured by Walter Sydney Adams in 1925, it was only conclusively tested when the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959 measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower using an extremely sensitive phenomenon called the Mössbauer effect.[24][25] The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity. This was one of the first precision experiments testing general relativity.
So 1960-1915, carry the 1... around 40.
Any other attempts to make an ass of yourself you'd like to add?
I mean when Einstein's theory of relativity was in question, did they take a survey and consider the matter settled?
That was about a subject of not large importance back then. Einstein didn't say that all industrialized and industrializing countries should invest trillions to re-design their energy processing systems to not rely on climate harming material. He did not say that countries whose economy bases on export of oil and gas should stop extracting in order to save the world. All he said was some theory about stuff whose influence you need a telescope or have to build satellites with atomic clocks in order to tell a difference. That was pretty far away from reality on earth back then.
Well, I looked at the horizon. And then I held up something straight to compare it to (the handle of my hockey stick). Looks flat to me. Check mate!
Have gnu, will travel.
Though it is still condemned by a certain segment of the population: The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, Robert Dicke, illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as Relativity and Time Signals[4] and Relativity - Joke or Swindle?[5]. Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its Counterexamples to Relativity page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. - http://www.conservapedia.com/T...
Effectively 100% of scientists in the field publishing papers in peer reviewed journals which all agree on the consensus is not a "popularity contest". It is sound science. If there was a genuine question as to whether anthropogenic climate change was real, there would be at least a handful of papers published by real scientists with expertise in the field indicating so. Please cite one of these papers.
Irrational people jump on anything that supports their existing beliefs and preconceptions, regardless of its veracity. You are one of those irrational people.
No, you are one of those irrational people who will find any reason to ignore the science on this one issue. Belief that there is a vast conspiracy that every single scientist with a passing interest in climatology is so willing to destroy their careers by falsifying data to perpetuate a ruse shows a complete misunderstanding of how science works on par with creationists and antivaxers.
Exactly. Fuck the human race after I am dead, what do I care. Fuck all of you.
You forgot to add: Now raise your right hand and swear you'll vote for me!
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution.
Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
"Negative" according to what?
I understand Linnaean Taxonomy has probably convinced you by means of a neat diagram, backed by authoritative-sounding Latin terminology, that they are basically you. So, species loss becomes a simple and understandable matter of psychological self-interest, since your end is morally and metaphysically undifferentiable.
Then you eat a steak for dinner. Ah well. Sic transit gloria mundi.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic campClimate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications.
however, climate denialists are not the ones trying to prove anything. the burden of proof lies on the ones making the claim.
That's right.
(A) Climate Denalists claim there's a problem with the science, it's up to them to prove that claim, the burden of proof, as you rightly point out, belongs to them.
(B) Climate denialists claim that mitigating our CO2 output will lead to the end of civilisation, it's up to them to prove that claim.
Lets get on with it. Everyone kills themselves except for me and 30,000 of the most genetically fit women. It will totally work. Problem solved.
So who now is in denial?
How much the planet will heat up and what level is even harmful, instead of helpful, is very much up for debate.
Since the next ice age is an inevitability, it's a race to see how much we as a people can prosper and prepare before we are all encased in a thousand years of winter - which is in the end vastly more a danger than even the most extreme warming forecasts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Capitalism is a redistribution plot...by design.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
Imagine "science" without the possibility of consensus:
"Hey, that whole gravity thing could be bogus! I know other researchers have verified it thousands of times, but maybe they're wrong. Let's just do some calibration tests every day in the lab to be sure stuff doesn't randomly start floating UP instead of falling down. After all, we can't accept consensus!"
"Well, I was going to do a chemistry experiment today, but I don't really believe that whole atomic theory of matter. I mean, there's 'consensus' on the idea that molecules are made up of atoms, and a substance has consistent properties based on that. But maybe water isn't really made up of H2O. Maybe if I zap it with electricity, it will turn out that it's actually made of microscopic gnomes! The gnomes could be magically giving the illusion of molecular structure. Before I start my chem experiments, I need to be sure my hypothetical gnomes aren't going to ruin the properties of my solvent. So let's test for gnomes every day!"
Obviously these are ridiculous examples. But actual science in practice requires that we accept a bunch of "givens" to actually make progress. Those are generally derived through scientific consensus. Yes, sometimes even those fundamental assumptions are shown to be wrong, at which point we have a "paradigm shift" (in Thomas Kuhn's terms) or modify the "hard core of our research program" (in Imre Lakatos's terms).
But "normal science" simply couldn't operate without foundational assumptions. Acting like there's no role for consensus in science is just ridiculous.
Now -- I understand that there may be greater range for doubt in the scientific community about how climate change works exactly than, say, for the basic idea of gravity or that water molecules are H2O. That's reflected in TFA -- the numbers vary from 90% to 99% consensus... I assume for gravity and water the numbers would be more like 99.999%.
There's still room for people to try to question the foundational assumptions within normal science. But TFA notes that for most scientists, they consider questioning the assumption itself to be less worthy of attention than refining the models within the paradigm. That's how science works... in reality. The bizarre pseudo-Popperian nonsense that sometimes gets spouted around here that "every scientific fact is always up for falsification!" simply isn't true.
If your lab equipment seemed to indicate that your water was made of tiny gnomes, the vast majority of scientists would probably assume there was something wrong with the equipment -- or that someone was playing a prank. And that would be a heck of a lot more likely than that they had just falsified the atomic theory of matter by discovering tiny magical gnomes that produced the illusion of molecular structure. Realizing this is part of being a scientist, and that involves accepting current consensus about foundational concepts.
While ever this situation continues we need to also continue to advocate for a continued, repeated effort to re-prove what we already know to be true, otherwise these people will never act.
"Denial much, guys? Do you work for coal/oil companies?"
If you want to see industrial-strength denial, just point out to a Church of Warminetics Operating Thetan that eliminating carbon would mean switching from fossil energy sources to nuclear.
Does the horizon really look flat to anyone? Show of hands, please.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate emission of pollutants that "endanger public health and welfare.""
I'd say the drought in California, the increased wildfires in Texas and say....Florida being underwater pretty squarely fall in its wheelhouse.
SCOTUS agrees
The Clean Air Act has been modified many times under it's proscribed authority as new pollutants are discovered and/or become a serious threat.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I know, right? Science is all BS.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think the AC was complaining, like so many other ACs here, that there are problems with the study (specific methodological problems, and fundamental philosophical problems [the importance of consensus to the veracity of AGW] ) that make it questionable.
That is, the AC is saying that you can and should criticize this study for being poor science, particularly if you hold the consensus position, as using bad science to support good science isn't rational. (From the third sentence in the AC's second paragraph.)
I'll agree with the AC that consensus is meaningless. Try to understand that this is being conflated with Gore's infamous 'the science is settled' line. It should be obvious that the very idea of 'settled science' is antithetical to science, and the consensus claim is intended to bolster that dangerously anti-science assertion. The consensus point, then, is intended to lend credibility to AGW claims without reference to any actual science. (I may be stretching the AC's "supporting science with anti-science" line a bit, but I think I'm on the mark.)
So, the AC is saying that the study is poor and should be criticized and that even if the study was properly done that it should have no influence on your beliefs about AGW.
As to the AC's beliefs about AGW, I can't find anything specific that would let me say if the AC supports it or is against it. That may have been you stretching things a bit.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Nice strawman. Can always count on climate to bring a spectacular and interminable parade of logical fallacies
BS science is BS.
Well not every little change really needs to be about save the planet stop global wappa.
Just look at Tokyo I'm sure they wish they had started working on emissions controls years ago as its going to take something like 30 years to get everything switched out with things that pollute less.
But still yet its worth doing for the quality of life improvement alone.
Led bulbs are now well priced taking less than 2 years to break even.
In my living room I have 6 65w bulbs when I get them switched out with LEDs the total for all 6 LEDs will be 60w for all 6 so less than 1/6th the power usage for the same amount of light.
I'm not doing that to stop global warming I'm doing that because it makes very good economic sense to do so.
India is making plans to become the first 100% EV country.
And from what I've read they want to do it because it will be cheaper not because of some concern for the environment.
Yet all of the above will likely still help anyway even if helping wasn't the reason it was done.
So next time you have to explain to someone why they should do x for the environment start out with explaining how much money it will save them.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
For all the harping of the issue, lets pretend for a min that 100% of everyone agrees, AGW is real and it is a problem.
Now what?
What I do NOT see is anyone putting fourth solutions that will prevent it from becoming a massive problem over time.
I see numbers that are "safe" from 300 up to 450 PPM CO2, but the problem is, even the White House Council on this says that to keep CO2 at 450 PPM that every nation must cut at least 60% CO2 and every industrial nation must cut by at least 80% by 2050.
The US put out over 5 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2015. So by 2050, with a larger population, we have to somehow cut that to 1 billion metric tons or less.
And so does EVERY OTHER NATION on Earth...
That doesn't strike me as very likely to happen.
Not only are we going to sail right by 500 PPM, I expect 600 PPM will come and go without much of an issue. We might slow the rise, but the picture isn't going to change.
---
https://www.climatecommunicati...
Page 4...
In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions
would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas
emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050.
Every single story here on Slashdot's is override with denial it's bullshit. For a bunch of seemingly intelligent people, I just don't get it. I attempt to look at things objectively. I've got 25 years of experience in physics and engineering. I even understand that academia has its flaws and that on an individual basis it's easy to get away with fudging things in a paper or two. This article is about once again going over the fact that there's a huuuuge, overwhelming scientific consensus supporting AGW, and everyone here thinks that they somehow are smarter than the global community of climate scientists. Get the fuck over yourselves
You're ignorant of the science used demonstrate climate change, yet you are certain that it is wrong. Well, I for one am convinced.
With carefully redefined terms, it is possible to make any statement truthful. For example, if we denounce any "skeptic" as not an expert (and worse), the above-quoted statement automatically truthful.
And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?
Problem solved — 100% unanimity achieved...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I too believe global warming is real and man made, but I also recognize that scientific "consensus" means absolutely nothing whatsoever when controversial ideas are involved. At one point the scientific consensus was in favor of earth being flat, and not washing hands before surgery. If you want a more recent example, look up the discovery of heliobacter pylori as a cause of ulcers. Dude almost got laughed out of his scientific field because "consensus" at the time was that ulcers are "because of the nerves, or something you eat". I'm sure others could come up with many other examples of varying vintage.
So don't beat people over the head with "consensus". Show them the data in a way mere mortals can understand. Appeal to their belief structure. That's really the only way to make a real difference.
Limits to growth wlll hit decades sooner and lead to major losses of food productivity and non-renewable resources (like chromium used to make stainless steel).
Food and population are higher than when first projected in 1972 so the overshoot will be that much worse. Other limits basically on track except pollution (we are doing really well on pollution).
Likely reduction of earth's carrying capacity will likely be from 12 billion to under 2 billion in the space of 20 to 30 years (pretty horrific). Human population is already almost 100% over sustainable levels. Basically the Mayans (who destroyed all their trees) or the Easter islanders (who destroyed all their trees), but played on a global scale.
But hey, it's too late to do a anything about. So you can't even get all overwrought about it.
These are the people who projected a 380ppm Co2 over 50 years ago. They were sharp cookies.
And no where NEAR as politicized as people are today. They were rational and drew the logical unpleasant conclusions from the data.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Yep. It's not hard to recognize a snow job when you see one. Perhaps these guys can all fly private planes to Bali and bemoan the fact that people don't take them seriously.
Of course, we'll call back when the cities of both shores of the USA are under 1-2 meters of water.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I agree with your sentiment.
I've found a few intelligent people who adamantly deny global warming, and their reasoning usually revolves around "If someone says don't do something or something bad will happen, it's purely an attempt to control you".
I somewhat understand that as the call against terrorism has always seemed like a giant power/vote grab to me, but then again we're all free to see the numbers of how little terrorism is a threat in day to day life.
The fact that different scientists all over the world do studies and come to a general consensus just makes them nervous of a global conspiracy instead of it might be the underlying truth, or somehow by default the more experts that agree on something the wronger it is.
The universal truth for these people is authority is bad and will always try to lie to you and screw you 100% of the time. I'm not sure how you educate against such an absolutist view.
It's turtles all the way down.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution.
Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
The naturalist position is also that your death is perfectly to be expected. I'm guessing that you care whether it happens early due to human folly.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
There is scientific consensus about a lot of ideas. Should we therefore reject them?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The problem for me is that a lot of denialist articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies to get people to deny climate change. So much of the denialist FUD looks like a power grab by fossil energy companies to give to pet politicians and astroturfing organisations to funnel the money back to their coffers.
FTFY
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
No it's not, the scientific method is based on proof and a chain of reproducibility. If you ask, "How do we know X is true?" You can find a paper, and reproduce its results. The paper is probably based on other papers, and if you want to, you can reproduce those results. If you want to, you can follow the chain all the way back to Galileo dropping balls off the leaning tower of Pisa.
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken. Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
From the few articles I've read
Sounds like you have a real informed opinion bro....... /sarcasm
Instead of wasting your typing skills by opinionating, why don't you go do a little more research? Then you would have found that there already are answers to your question:
How about some solutions people?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Aren't all economic systems by definition? Resources are here, people who need resources are there, how do we facilitate the transfer of one to the other?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
So a meta study on several crappy papers with significant methodological problems can yield a sterling paper?
Science!
It's interesting that all the climate science deniers do is complain about "crappy" papers when the studies that produced those papers are relatively easy and inexpensive to do? Why don't they publish their own rebuttal paper? Probably because they know they couldn't produce significantly different results than said "crappy" papers. All they've got left is to do is to nitpick.
Skepticism means demanding to be disproved by evidence. You seem to have the word confused with cynicism, which is being distrustful of the motives of others.
Generally I find that climate change deniers fall into the latter category.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Do I get it correctly that they have analysed metapapers analysing research which analyses the (A)GW? So, it is not longer enough to have consensus on AGW, it is now required to prove that people have consensus on having consensus?
I don't think this is going to convince people with doubts - only meta-meta-meta analysis done by same people could possibly do that...
Yeah, because deniers never publish ever. Cling tight to your fragile and lazy rationalisations.
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution. Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
Ah, the famous "it would have happened anyway" fallacy. According to your logic, we shouldn't investigate homicides and prosecute murderers, as people will die anyway.
Basic scientific fact: all species drive the evolution of all other species, and thus form interdependent chains. Natural extinctions tend to be caused by calamities that hit very nearly *all* species at once, meaning the leftovers can start from scratch.
Taking out species one at a time however is almost entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history, and it happening repeatedly in a short space of time IS entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history. There is no way to know how the death of *any* species will end up impacting us (contrary to common belief: we are not special or any less dependent on the interdependent networks of species than any other). The cause of our own species end could be the extinction of one unknown single-celled organism we didn't even know existed. That is an entirely LIKELY scientific scenario.
The main reason to preserve biodiversity is because it's utterly impossible to even begin to predict the impact of any extinction on all other species -and we're one of the species being impacted.
Extinction is part of nature, but so are we - extinction should be something we, like all other species, try to avoid - not something we fucking cause. There will never be a time when doing so is not self-defeating to the point of insanity.
Seriously "things go extinct naturally so we can cause whatever extinctions we want and it doesn't matter" has about the same effect on a biologist as you would have on a physicist if you told him you were busy banging two pieces of subcritical uranium together to keep warm.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
this topic really brings out the idiot trolls who are the worst examples of humanity
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Solutions exist. You might not like them, but they exist : http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... ... ;)
Smaller cities, less car, less meat, no planes, less useless gadgets that break after 1 year, smaller flats, better insulation, seasonal and regional food, solar thermal energy, photovoltaics, nukes,
As I said, there are solutions to both global warming and peak oil, but you might not like them. Don't kill the messenger
So where are these papers? Care to cite some? We can wait...
As much as I hate rewarding lazinness. Plenty of papers out there that argue TCR is well south of 2deg per doubling of CO2: a position that surely will get you labelled as a filthy denier. What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?. Be careful handling subversive materials not sanctioned by your tribal elders...
http://link.springer.com/artic...
Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
Exactly. Surveys among scientists are a way to derive policy from science. How else would you do it ? Have the President and Senate go out with thermometers and test it themselves ? Of course, scientists themselves are not basing their opinion on consensus. They are free to disagree and show evidence for their position.
I personally don't care what/who caused it, blaming is pointless.
By talking about blame, you are saying that we are looking for somebody to punish, which isn't the case. We are looking for causes - by knowing why climate change happens, we give ourselves a chance to change the behaviours that are harmful, and as it turns out, it seems likely that it may even boost our economical and technological development. Right now, to use a crude picture, we have placed our privy right next to the well, and we have discovered that there is a connection to the fact that everybody has terrible problems with their health all the time; would it not be sensible to do something about it? At least we could place the two further apart, or perhaps we could think about inventing sewers, water treatment etc. Look up "The Great Stink" to see how bad they let it get in London before investing in the sewers that everybody thinks of as obvious now. Climate change is the great stink of our time; hopefully we are not going to let it get as bad again.
Why shouldn't England be tropical (again)?
Tropical means within the tropics, i.e. between the latitudes that the solar zenith touches at the solstices. Plate tectonics are why England was once tropical and might be again (I don't know what the long term movement is projected to be).
Show them the data in a way mere mortals can understand. Appeal to their belief structure. That's really the only way to make a real difference.
That has already been done many times. But you can't convince anybody that has vested interest in not listening.
Really? Insightful for this?
Just because we know the answer to some questions, doesn't mean we know the answer to all of them. There is plenty of good research yet to be done.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Hey, that whole gravity thing could be bogus! I know other researchers have verified it thousands of times, but maybe they're wrong. Let's just do some calibration tests every day in the lab to be sure stuff doesn't randomly start floating UP instead of falling down. After all, we can't accept consensus!
The existing consensus on gravity has been overthrown before. Your 1001st gravitational calibration tests might be the one finally sensitive enough to detect that Newtonian gravity is incorrect.
"Well, I was going to do a chemistry experiment today, but I don't really believe that whole atomic theory of matter. I mean, there's 'consensus' on the idea that molecules are made up of atoms, and a substance has consistent properties based on that. But maybe water isn't really made up of H2O. Maybe if I zap it with electricity, it will turn out that it's actually made of microscopic gnomes! The gnomes could be magically giving the illusion of molecular structure. Before I start my chem experiments, I need to be sure my hypothetical gnomes aren't going to ruin the properties of my solvent. So let's test for gnomes every day!"
If your 'gnome' turns out to be nucleons and electrons, you would be right to challenge the atom ("indivisible") view. Or if it refers to polymeric chains comprised of H2O subunits. Zapping water with electricity does have important effects. It can decompose it into hydrogen and oxygen, it can restructure the arrangement of the molecules. Water is fairly sensitive to such effects.
The trouble with relying on consensus is that the scientific refinements we are searching for are precisely those which have eluded our previous knowledge and intuition.
My counter to
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
is that consensus is the enemy of the scientific method. People have been studying the universe as long as there has been people. Why did the scientific method spark so much progress? Because it disregarded consensus. The scientific method didn't care what Aristotle and all the intellectual giants had written about science, it said anything was fair game to be contested and disproven. Humanity was no longer beholden to oligarchy of thinkers in deciding what could and could not be so.
I don't disagree that there is something practical in establishing broad consensus. We have to choose which experiments we want to perform. Sometimes that is done by Senate committees. Sometimes it is done by individuals. We have finite resources and have to spend them wisely, and so science inherits a political aspect. But is that really in keeping with the scientific method? I think that's more of a practical sacrifice to achieve social goals. But scientists should always remember that the essence of their practice is in subjecting human conjecture to every suspicion, to be vindicated only by relentless experiment. And political expedience or no, I would hope there would always be a small contingent of holdouts against every theory, just to make sure we never find ourselves permanently entrenched in a pocket of false truths.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
So what is it about the science of climate change that you cannot verify yourself ?
The climate past about 150 years ago. For example, a key problem about which there is a great deal of confidence, but not a great deal of evidence is the assertion that solar forcing is not responsible for a majority of the global warming since 1850.
Exactly. Surveys among scientists are a way to derive policy from science. How else would you do it ? Have the President and Senate go out with thermometers and test it themselves ? Of course, scientists themselves are not basing their opinion on consensus. They are free to disagree and show evidence for their position.
Just because a problem is hard, doesn't justify that sort of short cut. And you ignore huge confirmation bias here. Let us keep in mind that there is all sorts of money for confirming global warming and exaggerating its effects. Sure, you would be free to disagree with the consensus and show evidence, but you aren't going to get significant funding to do so.
Scientists now are not trying to prove that human-made global warming is true, they are trying to quantify it, like they always did. The consensus is simply the result of error margins being smaller.
The error is still present though, and it is big, that's why now we don't know much besides "global warming is happening" and that's why research is still going on.
Quantifying is very important because we have solutions but none of them are without drawbacks. There is the solution of doing nothing, which may not be that bad, and there are ridiculous solutions like covering the oceans with white stuff and there is everything in between.
Yeah, maybe you could read your own sources: the relevant point is the Eddington experiment, where by the 1930s most people accepted it and Lick reinforced that. Yes, there was some small amount of doubt, but the direction of the evidence was already accepted in the 1930s. You'll note by the way, that I explicitly discussed GR and SR separately, whereas the comment I was replying to didn't, so where you get the idea that I'm the person in this conversation confusing the two is beyond me.
So do you want to address the more fundamental point at all about how there wasn't any danger in not accepting GR, whereas there is about about not doing anything about climate change?
You seem to be ignoring the entire point, which was that the effects of climate change are being detected now. This has nothing to do with some sort of weird metaphysics. I in fact won't in general eat steak but that has to do with the environmental damage that meat-eating does, and with the general intelligence of the cow, not because I'm related to it at all which is utterly irrelevant. It might help if you actually respond to things people are saying rather than imagine what they must do and imagine a scenario where they must be hypocrites and then use your imagined scenario as an argument.
Solutions exist. You might not like them, but they exist : http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... ... ;)
Smaller cities, less car, less meat, no planes, less useless gadgets that break after 1 year, smaller flats, better insulation, seasonal and regional food, solar thermal energy, photovoltaics, nukes,
As I said, there are solutions to both global warming and peak oil, but you might not like them. Don't kill the messenger
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot.
This is not a serious work. There's too many authors from the Cook et al 2013 study which came up with the bogus 97% consensus claim in the first place.
To outline what was wrong with the 2013 paper, the primary author, John Cook, who incidentally is also the primary author of this current work, already had started working out the propaganda uses of the research before he started the 2013 study, the raters (of which eight of the nine coauthors of that 2013 work are coauthors on this paper) discussed papers and authors in what was supposed to be a double-blind study, there was plenty of bias exhibited by the raters in internal discussions, and a bunch of misclassified and/or ignored papers. A couple of key discussions of these problems can be found here and here.
Bottom line is that the Cook 2013 study was so bad, biased, and predisposed to use as pro-climate change propaganda, that it should have never been published. I consider it outright fraud. Now, he and his fellow coauthors get to contaminate another such survey? That's very foolish.
Ultimately, the problem here is that this is an argument from authority fallacy, written by a primary author, John Cook who has already demonstrated that he is too biased to do credible scientific work.
You just called Creationism science.
Until a few centuries ago, creationists had consensus. Then actual science came along and proved the consensus wrong. After that, it took a long time to change consensus, to the point that there are still places where creationism does have consensus (Alabama, Syria...)
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot
Fortunately, we can just sit back and watch it happen by itself.
how much money has been wasted on this? all funding for global warming should now end as it's solved science. no more studies are needed.
nothing to see here - move along
What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?
There are surely fairly wide error bars around the CO2 sensitivity value. So, what's the best response to that ? Do we sit and wait until we've reduced the errors bars ? Do we weigh all the estimates, and do a risk/cost assessment ? Do we start by phasing out fossil fuels, since they'll become scarce anyway ?
By talking about blame, you are saying that we are looking for somebody to punish, which isn't the case. We are looking for causes
um........ why? Would the situation be any different if the science discovered it's not primarily caused by human activity? It's still a problem. Just a little devil's advocate here.
If the opposite were true, we're not causing climate change, and no I'm not denying we are, just curious... would we just go 'oh, its just natural, lets do nothing to try to fix it, lets just let the climate go to hell in a handbasket, cuz we're not the cause.'
That's why I think focusing on the cause isn't as helpful as some might think it is. And we need solutions the majority of the humans will adopt and embrace. There's lots of (in another reply here actually) of painful solutions, but is the majority adopting these solutions? Uhhh..no..
Can't we come up with some solutions to this problem that lets us keep our standard of living? Until we do, I personally doubt there will be an effective adoption of recommended changes. Just my opinion. As I already stated in my original post, even if we cut our emissions to zero this very instant, we still have a problem. We need a counter to the problem, not just a stop emissions resolution. That's not going to help fast enough. It'll help somewhat, but we need something bigger than just cleaning up our act, we need something to clean up the last 150 years of our act, yesterday.
Here's to hoping younger smarter minds than mine can come up with a miracle.
I recall a radio program a year or two back commenting on a study that looked at the global GDP investment cost of remaining with fossil fuels versus switching to renewables, and it found that they were roughly the same, just that the money ended up going to different places.
Basically, we do have the money, it's just a question of who gets paid.
Really wish I could find that study now....
My counter to
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
is that consensus is the enemy of the scientific method.
You're both wrong. Consensus is the goal of the scientific method. It's not part of it any more than the highway is part of the mall. But that's still where that road leads.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
but not by climate scientists. cut research funding for climate scientists.
nothing to see here - move along
The scientists sold the war in Iraq? I don't even...
No. The sellers in that case were the politicians and the profiteers. The concept is the same: push an agenda really hard and get "consensus". Many different groups use this technique. Sorry you couldn't grasp the concept.
You're right, sorry about that. It's still a lot easier to make less children than to have to kill your neighbour.
Everytime I see ads for a charity sending food to starving children, I have to think it would be much more efficient to just send condoms to men and education books to women.
How about some solutions people? And cutting emissions is not going to fly, we need a different solution than just cutting emissions, we're past the cutting emissions is gunna amount to much of anything.
I have been thinking about this problem for a while now, and recently I had a 'ridiculous'* idea that might just work:
Because the majority of the world's landmass (just under 70%) is in the northern hemisphere atmospheric CO2 concentrations decrease significantly** during the spring and summer months there, as all the vegetation absorbs CO2 during leaf growth. During the autumn and winter, as leaves fall off and decompose due to microbial activity, CO2 concentrations rise again.
My simple suggestion is collect the leaves when they fall, and prevent them decomposing.
Of course, I do realise it's not 'quite' as simple as that, but, please, give me a minute to expand upon the idea...
[1] It is obviously not going to be possible to collect more than a small fraction of the leaf matter that falls. However, while fallen leaves do not contain a great deal of nutrients it would probably not be desirable, from an ecological perspective, to remove them all anyway, as this would have indeterminate effects, and knock on effects, on insect populations and so on. In addition, if my back of an envelope guesstimates are correct, we wouldn't need to collect them all anyway.
[2] I envisage both a top down, in providing essential infrastructure & materials, process, and a more community based ground up process, in collecting and pre-processing the leaves. In other words, governments, both local and national, would provide regional processing facilities, logistics, and long term storage, while local organisations, such as community groups and schools would inspire and 'organise' the collections, and provide the pre-processing facilites.
[3] Many years ago I saw a device being sold in this country which, with the addition of a small amount of water turned old newspapers into paper bricks, which could then be burned in / on your log fire or stove. When I refer to pre-processing above this is essentially what I mean. You turn a low density random shaped sack of brown leaves into a much higher density regular shaped brown brick of mostly carbon.
[4] These bricks are then transported to a local treatment facility to kill any microbes (similar to the radiation treatment we (used to) use on canned goods), then stored, or more likely, buried for a long long time.
Alas, I'm out of time, so this brief outline is all you're going to get here. I will just mention though, clearly a lot more thought and work needs to go into the idea - for example I'm not really sure how the radiation treatment works or, thus, how effective it would be. There are other issues too, I'm sure there'll be quite a few of you only too willing to point them out. Before you do, please, read the footnotes below...
*While this idea might, at first reaction, really seem ridiculous, completely infeasible, and impossible to organise effectively, I'd much rather replies included at least some 'constructive criticism' or ideas for improvements or avenues for further investigation or thought.
**At the moment global CO2 concentrations are rising at about 2 to 3 parts per million per year. The seasonal swing 'looks' to be about 5 to 6 parts per million, in other words twice the global increase, but, honestly, I'm not sure of the exact figures.
All for phasing out fossil fuels: many good reasons for doing so beyond any AGW impacts that can actually be mitigated by any sort of realistic and achieveable migration pathway. But cannot just phase them out, we have to replace them with an alternative that actually works. Renewables capacity to scale to meet global need is dubious, poor EROEI, excessive land use requirements, no storage solution to provide base load. If people are truly serious about the dire need to phase out FF ASAP then nuclear needs to be on the table.
"We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."
No *real* expert in climate science disagrees...
...what is the cause of human caused global warming?
If you're wondering why we're questioning government-funded research that's been going on since Bush41 and was designed to obtain one and only one conclusion; that we are somehow warming the Earth and therefore need government oversight and regulation over every human activity that will, in the end, enslave our children, grandchildren, grand-grandchildren, etc... then yes, we are seeing thru the thinly veiled plan.
"Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
it seems that most of these people are far more interested in hypocritical glory and powers over people that communist dictators would relish. For many years the environmentalist movement has been a watermelon--green on the outside, red on the inside. The Marxist language used is a clear tell:
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection", says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. "The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
"Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
And the condescension runs deep, too:
"That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(I've no doubt that his answer will be "Not so much, so well control it for them.")
I'm sure you're a nice person, but you are 100% wrong on this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Search for "consensus" yields one line:
"In that vein he defined truth as the correspondence of a sign (in particular, a proposition) to its object and, pragmatically, not as actual consensus of some definite, finite community (such that to inquire would be to poll the experts), but instead as that final opinion which all investigators would reach sooner or later but still inevitably, if they were to push investigation far enough, even when they start from different points..."
Consensus matters for crap in science. Experiments and reproducible results are the only things that matter. Climate is hard because reproducing exact conditions is difficult without a spare earth... but hard doesn't mean we should resort to polling.
um........ why? Would the situation be any different if the science discovered it's not primarily caused by human activity?
Yes, because the solution depends on the cause. If CO2 had no effect on global temperature, there would be no need to reduce it.
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot.
That's actually what the nukes were to be used for.
Where do you live in Canada to see those huge changes? Can you provide a list of these changes and the link with global climate change with a confidance level over 95%? I am living in Canada too and I don't see huge changes, not changes I can attribute to something else than normal wheather variations.
Achille Talon
Hop!
97% of all climate scientists receive politically motivated funding and drink the same cool-aid. That said, in my spot on the planet we receive the gift of temperature inversion every winter. This traps the air blown in from China in my valley and everyone gets upper respiratory problems. I don't have a problem with people releasing as much CO2 as they want (plants love it! Green houses are good for plants), but particulates ... well please keep it down India, China, LA, factory down the highway.
this sig is deprecated
Yes, "argued by some"- what does that sound like? Oh, just like some people are arguing and have argued about climate change and *were wrong*. You'll always have a minority not accepting hard evidence. Again, the difference here is not only do we have the evidence, and we've had it for a long time, but the issue actually matters. Now do you want to address that or are you just going to have more fun with fonts?
The problem with your comparisons is lead in gasoline WAS a problem, that's why legislation forbidded its use as an additive.
Achille Talon
Hop!
It's the scientists that have consensus, not the politicians and profiteers. And make no mistake, the scientists DO have consensus among themselves because despite (as someone put it) the pseudo popperan nonsense, scientists do actually form consensus on things.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Proof is for mathematics and liquor". The word you are looking for is "evidence".
Studies like this have to be released because when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality. The evidence has been produced and made available to anyone who wishes to overturn it. So far no one has.
I'll agree with the AC that consensus is meaningless. Try to understand that this is being conflated with Gore's infamous 'the science is settled' line. It should be obvious that the very idea of 'settled science' is antithetical to science, and the consensus claim is intended to bolster that dangerously anti-science assertion. The consensus point, then, is intended to lend credibility to AGW claims without reference to any actual science. (I may be stretching the AC's "supporting science with anti-science" line a bit, but I think I'm on the mark.)
The problem is the the claim that consensus is meaningless is disingenuous. The consensus is important for non-scientists to understand the subject matter. The nay-sayers are trying to confuse lay people by pretending that there is disagreement on the issue. They know that people are more likely to accept doing nothing about a problem if they think the experts can't agree that there is a problem in the first place. Frankly, it's nothing more than manipulation and trickery.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Consensus matters for crap in science.
That does not reflect how any scientist ever actually does science.
Experiments and reproducible results are the only things that matter.
Yeah? Those are results, and they contribute to the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is best described as "the current state of knowledge".
And the consensus is very useful. No one has time, funds or will to go back and follow the entire chain of evidence for everything. Secondly, if you want to do science, the best thing is to start from the consensus and work forwards. If the consensus is wrong, you'll eventually see an inconsistency at which point you go back and start investigating things that there's a consensus on more deeply. If you don't---and this is by far the most common case---you save a vast amount of time.
No one ever works through the last 400 years of science from scratch before getting started on new research because that is completely infeasible. As a result people use the scienific consensus as a necessary shortcut to get started.
Finally if you're not currently actively investigating then having an unjustified opinion that differs from the scientific majority (i.e. consensus) basically shows you form opinion not based on any rational thought process.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah, starving children in poor countries, emitting 100x less CO2 than the average US/Canadian/Australian (which is already 2-3x the average European/Japanese) are the problem. We should kill them so that we can continue to drive our SUV to McDonald and leave the engine running while waiting in the drive in.
Are you arguing with yourself? In that entire post you didn't manage to say a single thing beyond kindly illustrating the boundaries of your knowledge, and showing everyone how prepared you are to leap over them when it suits you. Strange.
Seeing as the Earth was shown to be spherical before the birth of science, I'd say your first claim is entirely rubbish.
Firstly, the consensus is not the evidence of AGW. The evidence that has been released time and time again and which remains unsuccessfully challenged is the evidence. That was released and then people started complaining that because some kook somewhere voiced concerns (devoid of evidential support), the whole idea is nonsense. Then studies like this are released to show that not only is there a shit-tonne of evidence, but that the vast majority of scientists in the field agree with it.
It's understandable that studies like these have to be released if people (and media outlets) adopt the irrational position of decrying all the research because they don't like the findings, and try to hand-wave it away as simply being a minority position. What should happen instead?
Let me clear up the timeline for you.
1. The evidence for AGW is gathered through experimentation and research the world over. It is strong, peer-reviewed, seemingly sound, and released
2. People and media outlets decry it as being nonsense, because the outcome is unsettling and [insert some kook's name] claims it is nonsense, despite not having a paper challenging it
3. Scientists perform a study to show that not only is the evidence strong and peer-reviewed, that most scientists in the field agree with its findings, and [kook from #2] is clearly incorrect in their assertions
4. People like you ignore #1 and #2 and assume (either through ignorance or simple desire) that #3 is the evidence, and you quixotically round on it as if that will solve your problems
Either you don't understand what's happening, or you don't care. Neither is a rational position to have.
Lead levels were low but increasing. The other example ozone is even more to the point: the hole in the ozone layer never got large enough to do serious damage before we dealt with it.
I didn't elect these so called "scientists". Our system is one based on electing politicians that tell us what we want to here. It's a system that has worked for 100's of years, and only a communist would want to change it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Animal agriculture is said to cause 51% of greenhouse gases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
Something very simple to do, which you can do today.
And greenhouse gases are only part of the environmental destruction caused by the animal agriculture.
Everything Wrong With Environmentalism In 11 Minutes Or Less!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTBC91L-x0
In most cases, politicians follow the consensus opinion from scientists. That seems like a smart thing to do, and has nothing to do with communism.
> This is why they went from Global Cooling
Wrong. There was never a scientific censuses on global cooling. I think there was one article, in a news magazine, published in the 1970s. And the article was just a thought, not a conclusion reached by serious scientific research.
but not by climate scientists.
Are you claiming we know all there is to know about climate science?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This study is not the evidence. The studies upon studies chock-full of evidence are the evidence. This study is just to shut up the people who say "Oh but this guy I read on some blog says it's all nonsense, so I will ignore the science and also say it is nonsense". This study wouldn't be necessary if people understood the scientific method, and were not unsettled by the findings.
AGW has evidence and consensus. That's the point of studies like this - it takes away yet another nonsensical argument made against the findings by people too scared, ignorant, or apathetic to accept the evidence itself.
https://xkcd.com/1447/
51% of greenhouse gases caused by animal agriculture.
Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
Animal agriculture also causes numerous other environmental problems.
Everything Wrong With Environmentalism In 11 Minutes Or Less!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTBC91L-x0
Nuclear futures: thorium could be the silver bullet to solve our energy crisis
http://theconversation.com/nuclear-futures-thorium-could-be-the-silver-bullet-to-solve-our-energy-crisis-14056
Will Thorium Save Us From Climate Change?
http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/11/will-thorium-save-us-from-climate-change/
Studies like this have to be released
No they don't.
when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
That's a political goal, not a scientific point. On top of that, there isn't much agreement on the question that matters for political purposes, "What, if anything should we do?"
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality.
Indeed, it's not, well said.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This particular paper is an attempt to deceive. It gives the impression that there is broad agreement among scientists about the actions we should take, or that we should do anything, or that the human caused change is even measurable. Those are not true.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
As I said, there are solutions to both global warming and peak oil, but you might not like them. Don't kill the messenger ;)
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot.
So are you saying that we should kill the messenger? Well, if it'll save the planet, I suppose...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
but not a great deal of evidence is the assertion that solar forcing is not responsible for a majority of the global warming since 1850.
A great deal of warming happened after 1970, and we have excellent measurements of the solar forcing in that period. On average, solar forcing went down as temperatures went up.
Sure, you would be free to disagree with the consensus and show evidence, but you aren't going to get significant funding to do so.
That makes no sense. As demonstrated by their lack of solutions, it's clear that politicians have no interest to deal with the AGW problem. Paying someone to make it go away would be a perfect solution.
Just because a problem is hard, doesn't justify that sort of short cut.
What's your alternative ?
In fact, the consensus view at present is that the impact of CO2 is overestimated.
Nope. That's not the current consensus view. There have been some studies which have rejected the more dire models for CO2. But your links are a few years old. Basically, your links are referring to issues where models didn't predict the "slowdown" in climate change that happened in the early 2000s. It has now picked up again.
And this is likely just due to random elements in a chaotic system. Subsequent studies have suggested that randomness in the earth's climate from year-to-year probably has multiple times the amount of impact that alterations to the CO2 model (or other factors, like sunlight absorption models, ocean absorption models, etc.) have.
Bottom line: the validity of these models has to be judged over longer timespans, to avoid the year-to-year blips in a chaotic system. With that taken into account, the general CO2 models likely aren't that far off.
The models didn't just fail to predict the 'slowdown'. 111 out of 114 of the models the IPCC evaluated overestimated the only 15 years of data they had to compare them against. You are correct though, the models need to be judged over longer time frames...
The IPCC has an entire section devoted to evaluating models in their last assessment report. If you look down to Box 9.1 they discuss model tuning, and the example of comparing longer time frames through hindcasting, like pre-industrial model runs. The IPCC says the following:
maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
For the record, the sum of all natural and human climate forcings act together by changing the TOA energy imbalance. It's the fundamental physics behind more CO2 trapping more energy means warmer temperatures. The part I'd like to draw attention to is that the part of the models that we 'tune' is still sufficient to cause drifting to an unrealistic state.
With 111 out of 114 models underestimating the only dataset we DO have to compare them against, and with the models requiring manual adjustment to hindcast longer time frames realistically, I lack your confidence in their predictive power. The models tell us lots of important things about what we know and what we are trying to test and understand. Don't reject that one of the things they tell us however is that the sum of the unknowns we still tune the models by are important enough to drive the climate to unrealistic states.
No, according to your logic, which I'm merely reiterating, we should be spending no more time investigating those than investigating the moral implications of your (non-vegetarian) lunch.
Don't confuse your untenable position with mine.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Seeing things like "100%" makes me suspicious, critical, or leery of the whatever the statement is, particularly when concerning science, which generally doesn't work that way.
Just like when some tyrannical despot gets 100% of the "democratic" vote in their country, usually sparks my disbelief.
That is not to say I disagree with the assertion that climate changes exists, nor that it isn't likely influenced by humans, only that when I get that 100% of anything (that isn't some conceptual absolute mathematical proof or something), it really sets off my bullshit alarm.
Science is not a democracy.
However, democracy is, and in a democratic world it's important for people to understand what the scientific consensus on a topic is.
Release the RAW fucking data with full disclosure of methodology with the maximum transparency.
This isn't about the raw data that proves global warming, it's about examining why some studies have determined different levels of consensus, and the conclusion is that primary reason is that they measured different groups with different levels of expertise.
The raw data for this study is included in the study, in a nice chart, right in the middle. I strongly suspect, however, that you didn't bother to read it, have no clue what you're writing about, and are just ranting your uninformed pre-existing opinions.
Look, why is this so fucking hard for the sophists to grasp.
Most likely because despite having some kind of fetish for claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a sophist, you have no idea what one actually is. You are clearly unable to recognize that your own behaviour more closely resembles sophism than the behaviour of anyone I have seen you label with that term.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
To be clear the research we're talking about is just a review of published papers to determine the strength of the consensus on climate science. All you need to pay for is access to the papers and some people to read through them to rate the paper's support of the dominant paradigm. It is not research into actual climate science which requires such expensive instrumentation as satellites and supercomputers.
If that's true then how did the 3% of papers the Cook13 study found that rejected the dominant paradigm get through?
So, I'll ask again: "Negative" according to what?
What you've stated here isn't a position, it's a rephrasing. It's a "gut reaction" or psychological concern based on unstated recognition that you, according to you, are in the same category as all the innumerable biological endpoints that in any other context, you acknowledge are both inevitable and necessary.
If you are proposing a teleology to life on earth, that is, an actual specific purpose or goal to evolution or biological processes, you haven't stated it here. You've stated unbacked personal feelings. That is fine so long as no serious use is to be attempted from your position--like relative prioritization of the biological entities at hand. As in, some actual useful plan, other than handwringing that life can only be what you assert it is, but we should stop it somehow anyway.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
There is plenty of good research yet to be done.
Like what? What are the important unknowns here?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Global climate change is happening now with current negative results https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/T...
That's a cool link, but it's just some words on someone's website.
We had an actual scientific study posted here on Slashdot a few weeks ago that showed that there are no weather changes that can be attributed to AGW.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Several of the Essays Authors, Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook among others, had a paper on the same subject retracted. and last I heard Lewandowski is under investigation for fraud, both scientific and financial and has secured employment in a country other than where the alleged fraud occurred. So yes some of these nut-cases will destroy their careers by using made-up data, and it makes it hard for many of us to just except their data or their crony- reviewed papers hiding behind pay-walls.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
proved my point, thanks.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Population: " OH NO!! WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?"
Scientists/Politicians " WE JUST NEED LOTS OF YOUR MONEY AND FREEDOM."
Population: "..........uh how about no."
Scientists/Politicians: "WE ARE ALL DOOMED EVERYTHING IS GOING TO GOTO HELL"
Population: "Fuck off"
Twenty years later
Scientists/Politicians: "WE HAVE A NEW PROBLEM!!!!!!!"
Population: "WHAT'S WRONG!!!???"
Scientists/Politicians: "IT'S TOTALLY NEW PROBLEM...cough...cough that's just like the old one that nothing ever came of cough...cough"
Population".................let me guess all you need is my money and freedom"
Scientist/Politicians "YES HOW DID YOU KNOW?"
Population "Fuck off".
Twenty Years later.......
The NWF is hardly just someone's website. Moreover, I'm not even sure what your point is: weather events are not the only impact from global warming. So saying we can't attribute any specific weather reports to climate change isn't very relevant to the vast majority of what is being discussed.
The Earth's temperature isn't static and never was. Get over it
That's like saying it's not a problem if your house is on fire, because there used to be an active volcano in the same spot.
The academics are probably right, but it still pisses me off how they engage in circular reasoning.
It's been decades already that expressing severe skepticism over anthropogenic over global warming has been tantamount to a suicidal CLM, creating a situation within climate-science academia where "expertise" and "orthodoxy" are 90% interchangeable.
This doesn't mean they are wrong. It does mean they should check for a second elbow before they congratulate themselves for being able to pat their dorsal desk-jockey humps.
Science doesn't operate on consensus. Science operates on the scientific method, hypotheses, theories, and laws. We don't advance science by taking votes on which hypothesis or theory is correct.
Which is fine because this study isn't about declaring global warming as true or false. It's about applying the scientific method to determine if a consensus exists.
than 2 years to break even.
2/16 of my LED bulbs have burned out in under 3 years.
wut
No, it's been cancelled,
Many models of the final predicted rise in temperature do not take us over the warmest the planet has ever been. So why exactly do you imagine us to be suddenly immune from an ice age?
Multi-thousand year cycles are simply not that easy to escape.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The NWF is hardly just someone's website.
That's true, it's the website of a group whose admitted goal is advocacy and propaganda. That is why they exist. (Not that it's a bad thing, but it's not science).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Almost every country has a problem : either too much CO2 per capita or too many people.
India actually has both problems.
Relying on the prior papers is exactly relying on the authority of the group
Yes. And relying on the authority of the group is exactly not science, for reasons that have been shown over and over again.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Basically, your plan is to turn plant matter into coal, and bury that
Essentially, yes...
while at the same time digging up other coal to burn.
...but I don't recall mentioning this part in my post.
Look, I'm not claiming this is the solution to global warming, I'm just suggesting that, if the energy balances work out, this is a method of mitigating some of our CO2 output, buying us additional time while we transition to a lower carbon intensity civilisation.
. That's the point of studies like this - it takes away yet another nonsensical argument
I think that it's foolish to believe that this will disarm them in any way. (Was their any question about majority consensus in the first place?) Rather, I suspect it will reinforce their beliefs regarding dishonestly and corruption, given what we can see in this thread.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Speaking of real estate...when a "climate scientist" says "hey, there's no problem!" they're admitting that their research is unnecessary and would end up losing their research grants and soon after their McMansion. I wonder if we'll ever get a survey adjusted for the "need to eat" bias. Lol
The real path to male liberation
Sure, I guess the Mexicans won't care too much about how thick an ice sheet is covering the US, as long as you stay north of the wonderful and lovely Trump wall...
Your comment is misleading.
India has a level of CO2 emissions per capita which is much lower than the world average.
As for the population problem, are you suggesting India should split itself in a dozen of countries? How would that have any effect on global emissions?
The food scientist consensus was that saturated fats etc made people fat, so they switched America to a low-fat high-carb diet. Well evidence shows that's total BS, yet they discount it.
So what does a scientific consensus really mean?
Certainly "CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate."; the real question is how much. The amount of CO2 required to produce a given amount of change is logarithmic, the amount of changed caused by increasing CO2 by 180 ppm from the depth of the last ice-age to 360 ppm is likely to be the same as increasing the CO2 by twice as much to 720 ppm; and it will not be enough to get to catastrophic levels without amplification from water vapor and presently it's unclear if that will happen because of gaps in our knowledge of clouds and oceanic effects.
With recent increases in Primary Production, due to increased CO2 levels, it looks like the amount of CO2 emissions is going to be a lot more than the model expect as well.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
With the global warming that's already occurred sea level rise is inevitable. Even if we stopped temperature rises today it would take several hundred years for the great ice sheets to reach a new equilibrium and for sea level to stop rising and I doubt that means less than 10 or 20 feet of rise. OTOH an asteroid strike or supervolcano eruption is a rare event. I do believe we should put more into searching for potential asteroid strikes. A supervolcano eruption is unlikely to happen without several months warning so plenty of time to evacuate people. When Mt. St. Helens blew in 1980 there were at least 2 months of activity before the big eruption.
I think most people would agree that the Earth's climate has changed and will continue to change.
The bone of contention is between those that believe it is caused by human activity and those that that don't.
.
Assume for the moment that it is caused by human activity and not solar radiation or a change in the tilt of the earth's axis.
That means that there must be something that we can do to reduce or eliminate the portion of the change caused by humans.
Given that the population will continue to grow, and that there will be a need to provide food, shelter, transportation, etc for an ever increasing number of people, it is unlikely that we will be able to reduce the production of greenhouse gases by an amount to have any effect on global warming.
So that leaves us with one solution. Reduce the number of humans on the Earth.
That leaves two options.
1. Export people from Earth to other worlds.
2. Eliminate people.
Of these the second is the easiest and the quickest solution. We have the means. Those in power are working up the will to execute option 2.
I think there are different ways of looking at the issue, and it's interesting to observe.
I can, for example, see an argument that one of these dichotomies is between seeing humans as part of the natural global ecosystem, as opposed to something "outside" or "different from" the natural system.
If we assume the first, then whatever we do and whatever the consequences, it's just nature doing its thing. I think that's a valid point of view, albeit fatalistic and probably leading (naturally) to the eventual extinction of our species.
If we assume the second, that in some way we are "not natural" (perhaps because we can choose our group behaviors consciously, to some extent), then our actions and the consequences become a moral question and perhaps an existential challenge, and we should judge our choices accordingly. While there are obvious arguments against these premises and assumptions, I do think it offers at least a hope of long term survival if we can find a way to direct our group behaviors toward consequences favorable to our continued existence, leaving aside the aesthetic argument of keeping things that we like instead of destroying them.
It might be argued that killing off other species at a rate unprecedented outside of major calamity is not proven to be detrimental to our own survival, but I think that misses the point that even if we don't exterminate ourselves, we'd probably be better off and happier if we didn't befoul our own nest over-much.
WALSTIB!
You misunderstand the nature of consensus in science. It's not something that scientists get together and decide on. Rather it happens organically when the vast majority of scientists in a field no longer argue about a point but just accept it and move on to other things they can argue about.
Of course a carbon tax is one of the simplest market based solutions there are. Put a cost on carbon and the market will naturally look for ways to reduce cost by reducing carbon usage.
Those proofs will come right after the climate change evangelists prove that warming is caused by man.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This was found by John Tyndall in the 1950s.
2) Human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is easily shown by the fact that the year to year rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half the total year to year human emissions of CO2.
What more do you need?
I think most people would consider the risk of our own extinction a negative. Is this entirely rational ? Perhaps not, but the inverse is entirely insane. Nihilism has never been anything but thinly masked insanity.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Oh, naturally, and I am perfectly clear on why it is a "negative" from my worldview. I'm asking why it is from a naturalist's viewpoint. You know, an actual objective demonstrator of why humans dying is a moral issue greater than that of other species (e.g. lunch)--one that isn't simply stealing my position's logical underpinnings to back their position which has no rationale of its own.
Failure to recognize their position is nihilistic, whether they admit it or not, is only helped by me pointing out the facts of the matter. My stating clearly their position, does not make it mine.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I never mentioned any lunch, by the way.
Oh, shoot, you're right, I "just" inverted China and India :)
http://www.manicore.com/anglai...
China is already way above the allowed emission per capita (compared to existing CO2 sinks), India is just a the correct level.
The naturalist answer is: our species invented the idea of things mattering so we get to choose which things matter and damn near all of us have chosen survival to be on that list.
On another measure: what counts as a rational motivation is not actually all that well defined. Libertarians and objectivists consider only self serving behavior for personal gain to be rational just about all other philosophies have different definitions but unversally agree that "self interest only" is not rational motivation.
The problem is that no motivations are ever rational. A rational motivation is a contradiction in terms. Motivation is an emotion. It can be influenced by other emotions but it can never be rational. Objectivism's mistake is to fail to realise that and so elevate the emotions of greed and envy to the rank of rational thought so they can claim that motivations based on those emotions are rational and dismiss as irational motivations like love, empathy or fear.
In the end survival instinct is another emotion. Its as valid and rational a motivation as any other. There are no rational justifications. For anything. Rational thought is fantastic for achieving a goal. Its the perfect tool for finding the best way of reaching a goal but its absolutely useless for choosing goals.
You can use rational thought to work out how to impress your lover but not choose who you love.
Motivations are emotions. Desire to survive is an emotion. Its no less valid a motivation for that. Rationalitys job starts after you identify the emotional need to fullfill. It does not and cannot define the need.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I agree nuclear should be on the table too, but it's far from the only option, and rarely the best when you consider full-lifecycle costs and risks.
It may have escaped your notice but a number of countries have been busy scaling up their renewable energy production dramatically, including China. And grid-scale energy storage technologies abound, from pumped hydro to reflow batteries to molten salt and even kinetic flywheels.
The only real factor for adoption is cost, not existence. But while direct costs for renewables & storage have been falling rapidly, it's our stubborn refusal to consider all the costs of our current choices, including the many indirect and externalised costs to society, that has left us in this position today.
Sadly, too many vested interests are threatened to permit a clear-headed picture, so the arguments continue.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So then, I'm willing to work within your context, existence as a contest of emotions, and which will win.
As the member of this discussion that has even a possibility of survival in a 150-year-timeframe, consistent with my religion, evolution, and your position, I'll follow your suggestion and allow the emotions/motivations of all surviving at that point in time to determine the agenda. More research on "selection" mechanisms I'm sure will be... interesting.
I'll assume we are now in full agreement on all relevant points. Until then.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Certainly "CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate."; the real question is how much.
So: in fact, the impact on the climate from our CO2 emissions could be worse than the science predicts?
The amount of CO2 required to produce a given amount of change is logarithmic, the amount of changed caused by increasing CO2 by 180 ppm from the depth of the last ice-age to 360 ppm is likely to be the same as increasing the CO2 by twice as much to 720 ppm; and it will not be enough to get to catastrophic levels without amplification from water vapor and presently it's unclear if that will happen because of gaps in our knowledge of clouds and oceanic effects.
The same scientists who told you that the sensitivity is logarithmic are telling you that doubling the CO2 past the pre-industrial baseline will likely be sufficient to raise the temperature by 2.5 degrees. Yet you choose to believe one thing and not the other - pretending that "could be as low as 1.5" is the same as "will be as low as 1.5" and not the same as "could be as high as 7.5".
With recent increases in Primary Production, due to increased CO2 levels, it looks like the amount of CO2 emissions is going to be a lot more than the model expect as well.
How did you reach this conclusion without having a model? Can we see your model?
Didn't we have this conversation, like, 2 days ago? Have you got a short term memory problem or do you think it's okay to repeat fallacies that have already been debunked?
The crackpots with the whacky theory (AGW) have the burden of proof.
You don't get to tell people what to do. You can post proofs of your simpleton worldview and hope to convince us if you want. Or just go back to lying under a rock and quivering.
They have yet to prove anything. Until then status quo is they're still full of crap.
Why should I believe you? Your language and attitude is not conducive to convincing me that your theory involving zombies and time travelling invisible Svante Arrehenius has any merit.
You have it all backwards but that is expected from a religous whacky nut who believes cow farts are turning the planet into Venus.
tsk tsk. You won't convince me by insulting me.
You didn't invent anything. You still try to mislead slashdotters by trying to make them believe that somehow, because the Chinese and the Indians happen to be regrouped in a country with more people than say, the USA or the UAE, they should have less individual right to emit CO2.
You say that too many people in a country is a problem. I gave you the solution: just divide the country in a dozen of smaller countries. The solution is just as ridiculous as your comment.
And not all countries "above the allowed emission per capita" (whatever the allowed cap is) are equal. Rich western & Arab polluters such as USA, Australia, UAE, Canada and Qatar are still much worse than China or India.
What's the big difference here? The scientists have decades of hard evidence and observation. Unlike the politicians behind the Iraq war.
You know who else has been pushing hard on this agenda? The fossil fuel industry. And, like the politicians, they too lack evidence, and so have resorted to money and influence instead.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken.
Oh good lord! Do you seriously think climate scientists got together and voted on a consensus? The claims of consensus come from outside the climate science community from a review of what they are publishing. In science consensus is something that happens organically when so many scientists accept a point that only the cranks argue about it any more. I doubt scientists spend much time thinking about consensus. It's something for outsiders to use to judge the degree of certainty about things in a scientific field.
Nah. You're reading more into my comment than what I said. I am not denying that climate scientists do science, rather denying that this particular thing is science.
Scientists don't depend on consensus.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The controversy comes from the wether being a chaotic system
Having had some experiences with wethers they do, indeed behave in unpredictable ways.
The climate, not so much.
consensus means that it based on opinion, science is NOT opinion!!
and meta-studies are utter shit, just cherry picking for wanted answer.
Consensus in science means something that scientists don't waste their time arguing about because the (nearly) all agree about it.
Well, apart from the many, many details involved in narrowing those error bars, how about local impacts?
How can a local government efficiently allocate funding to mitigate the impacts of changing climate until we can tell them in some detail what those impacts are likely to be, in their area? This requires applying the general predictions to every local situation.
Australia recently slashed funding to its CSIRO climate research division, saying "Yes we get it, AGW is happening, no need to keep studying it", and the question was immediately raised of who would now be able to provide the specific information needed to decide what to do about it.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Except we're not just relying on the authority of the group. There's those IPCC reports and all the evidence cited there, as has also been said many times.
The consensus here is of experts in the field who have reviewed that cited evidence and all reached the same conclusion.
There are obviously a few experts who disagree, but it's telling that their arguments have failed to convince the vast majority of climatologists, don't you think?
The evidence for the case of AGW is clearly far more compelling, to those who have proven, in-depth expertise in the subject.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Oh, the Telegraph has proved the scientists all wrong, lol. Pack it all up guys, a tabloid has disproved our peer-reviewed evidence, who knew..
As for the alleged "lying" in your WSJ link, no fewer than eight independent investigations all cleared the CRU of any misconduct. What we need now is an investigation into why this dead horse is still being beaten..
I could go on but why bother.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Alternative? Keep observing. If there are any real problems with climate change, it will turn up eventually.
A great deal of warming happened after 1970, and we have excellent measurements of the solar forcing in that period. On average, solar forcing went down as temperatures went up.
No, solar forcing is a calculated value based on a rather standard model not a direct observation. And given that there's still a factor of three difference between lowest and highest value of the temperature forcing from CO2, I don't buy that we have precise enough determination of solar forcing to justify your claim.
As demonstrated by their lack of solutions, it's clear that politicians have no interest to deal with the AGW problem. Paying someone to make it go away would be a perfect solution.
Lack of solutions doesn't mean one isn't interested in using the problem. The US has various interminable wars on vague concepts which weren't started because their politicians had solutions or interest in dealing with the problems.
If climate change is real, then fucking act on it, enough with the goddamn grandstanding.
Unfortunately in the USA there is a political party that is dead set against acting on it and that has enough power to make that stick.
Not only are we going to sail right by 500 PPM, I expect 600 PPM will come and go without much of an issue. We might slow the rise, but the picture isn't going to change.
I'm not sure we'll make it to 600 ppm. Long before we get there I would expect civilization to collapse and billions of people around the world to die of starvation and wars. If we hit 600 ppm you can pretty much guarantee over 100 feet of sea level rise although it will take centuries to get there.
The key points are:
Climate sensitivity to CO2
Longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere
Positive feedbacks
Natural variability
None of which are known except that the current guestimates don't match reality. They certainly don't match the predictions from Hansen, Mann and Gore.
All the rest is just bollocks. Studies about studies are bollocks. Meta-studies about studies about studies are bollocks. Climate science is an embarrassment. Lost records, withheld data, pal review, gobs of money being thrown at it, global conferences in really nice places, mansions on the beach, private fucking planes, grants going to family members, etc. Run by the same body that puts totalitarian governments on their Human Rights Commission.
Bollocks
I am pretty much on board that the planet is going through a warming period. My questions include (1) what is causing it? (2) how is separated from other warming causes which we know happen all the time (3) what we can do about it (4) what we should do about it (cost vs benefit) (5) why government and Goldman Sachs should be allowed to GROW and profit from the crisis. It is VERY clear that government and GS never waste a good crisis but love to foment them. Government "science" should always be suspect; it is a significant conflict of interest. That doesn't mean the science is necessarily bad -- but it sure should be held to a much higher standard than other science.
It's been proven that science is wrong more often than not, so I don't see why you would think politicians have any reason to follow scientific consensus.
(whoosh)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There's those IPCC reports and all the evidence cited there, as has also been said many times.
I've read a lot of the IPCC report. Which evidence specifically are you referring to from it? Are you one of the people who can't understand the evidence? If so, then I pity you, but I'm more interested in discussing this topic with people who can understand it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I wasn't the one who associated extinctions with climate change - I just refuted the idea that they are a minor problem.
Climate change if anything will mostly cause problems for humans in the opposite way - not by causing many extinctions but by letting creatures thrive which harm us. The survival ranges of pests that destroy our crops and spread disease are likely to expand massively and that will kills lots of humans.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Scientists say it's my fault, personally and specifically?
Go ahead and cite that.
As for the rest, you don't really need to understand it, all that needs to happen is for time to pass. Try making some personal projections from time's tendency to reliably do that.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
"And so I wondered, if you also would conclude that because humans die all the time, and this is seen as natural, we shouldn't care if humans die because of human involvement."
Of course we should care. And then we should do something about it that has more than zero possibility of changing that outcome.
I suggest theism.
As for lunch, by what moral principle do you declare that the animal in your hamburger (substitute non-vegetarian dish of your choice) has no right to exist, but you do? I know the answer from my worldview. Do you have some basis for your hominid species being "special", from yours?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The next question is: Ok, so we're causing climate change; so what do we do about it?
And yes, some of the ideas out there are pretty radical (i.e. crazy). That's of course not to say that impopular (lifestyle) changes absolutely cannot be imposed on the population at large. They can (even if the same "conservative" politics seem to violently resist that notion).
The best course of action is not so self-evident since it touches upon a fundamental issue of our society. If some sub-group wishes to engage in a conduct that's endangering the rest of us, do we have the right to compel them to stop?
And what do we do if and when we find that some among us are using such compulsory measures to further their own agenda?
So, before we resort to any crude compulsory measures, we'd better make triple certain that (1) they are absolutely necessary (i.e. there is no more cost-effective way to achieve something equivalent using e.g. persuasion, education, innovation, stimulation, subsidies, taxation, or regulation) and (2) that imposing them is really unavoidable and therefore justified and (3) that we have a viable way of dealing with groups (or nations) that deliberately refrain from taking measures in order to gain material advantage..
Seen in this light I think we'll be seeing more low-key measures that simply internalise external costs (e.g. through taxation) than draconic and disruptive ones.
Let's not forget there's a bright side to all this too. As a society we're pretty good at adapting and innovating. It's likely that we can find areas in which we're better able to adapt than others.
Take the manufacturing industry for example, let's say: steel making. Who is likely to be more adaptive to stricter environmental standards: the Chinese, European, or US industries? Who's therefore likely to gain competitive advantages from stricter regulation (backed by e.g. international agreements and import tariffs)? I'm not pessimistic.
Sorry if I wasn't clear : the allowed emission per capita is just the sum of CO2 sinks divided by world population, which is about 1.7t CO2 per person. ....".
It isn't defined by the world average CO2 emissions, but simply by how much the Earth absorbs back every year.
No nationality involved!
For all the rich countries that don't have a high fertility rate but huge emissions per capita, see my post above concerning the possible solutions : "Smaller cities, less car, less meat, no planes, less useless gadgets that break after 1 year, smaller flats,
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot.
Typical malthusian nonsense. LED lamps in every house equals to serious genocide. Why bother with genocide then?..
That 1.7t/person/year is probably not static. Carbon storage technologies exist. But still, you can't blame a country emitting 5t/person/year when your country is emitting over 20.
That's easier that it sounds--and not just by disease or genocide.
Population growth rates are low or negative in a lot of western nations. Countries like Canada rely on immigration to maintain population growth.
So education--particularly for women--and easy access to birth control is a huge benefit to the world. We can really turn around our population in just a few generations if we want to.
They have a direct incentive to figure out what is an actual threat and what isn't so they don't waste their time on environmental issues that aren't high priorities. They also did a pretty decent job of linking to sources to back up their statements.
Nah, here's some actual science: "much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately." Here's more science, if you are able to understand that kind of thing. If you can't understand scientific papers, then that's too bad, but you'll have to rely on propaganda from advocacy groups.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The abstract of the paper seems to imply TCR is likely to be around 1.05-1.80... one of which is well south of 2. However, this doesn't seem to be a denier position, nor a denier getting a peer-reviewed paper published.
Consensus science is mythology, not science.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. Consensus is against the scientific method.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You already said that, coward.
While I agree that global warming is happening and man made. I don't like science being based on a "consensus of experts" it makes it sound like a popularity contest. Like there's paparazzi following scientists around, and if one group of researchers gets mad at another over some embarrassing photos, then they'll change their mind, consensus will drop to 80%, and global warming won't be as true anymore ;)
Finally, someone who gets it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Human driven climate change is a 100% pile of garbage. Its a scam to extract wealth from the global economy. 1)Other planets and moons are warming 2)Co2 follows the weather 3)The magnetosphere is weakening 4)The albedo effect warms the oceans because the dark color absorbs light 5)Earths rotation is slowing(albedo) 6)Magnetic north is moving fast 7)Earth has been warming for over 10k yrs 8)Warming is flat and Co2 is way up 9)What causes an ice age? 10)The sun makes up more then 80% of the solar system 11)the late 90s warming correlates with the sunspot maximum 12)solar experts are expecting a longer then normal solar minimum 13)climate models testing co2 as a driver have never produced anything observable 14)many climate scientists included in the 97% are documented skeptics of "manmade climate change" 15)almost all people on earth understand climate change happens The biggest variables in climate change are: solar activity/magnetosphere/albedo/precession And the biggest green house gas is water. Water is the most transformative molecule and the most reactive. GET OVER IT!
Can you please expand this to explain other research professions. For example in your theory do all researchers need to predict an impending calamity in order to demonstrate a need for thier services? For example: Physicists Botanists Chemists Biologists Astronomers How do they justify thier paychecks if they are not predicting doom?
At one time the Luminiferous Aether theory was "Consensus" before we got relativity. All I see is a bunch poorly designed experiments. I've noticed that most of the hysterical conclusions come from anti-human, anti-capitalist newspapers and magazines, not from the peer-reviewed journals.
This bar is incredibly low. There is very low probability that there isn't some warming. What would be more interesting question: A) what is the probability that the warming we've seen isn't caused entirely by humans. I predict that the at least 90 % of climate scientists would agree with this statement. B) What is the probability that none of the warming is due to man? This probability could be as high as 50%. C) what is the probability the less than 50% of the warming we've seen is being caused by man? I believe climate scientists would agree at this point that it could be 70%. D) what is the probability that temperatures rise 1c between now and 2100. I believe climate scientists would have to agree less than 20%. E) what is the probability that sea level will rise less than 6" more by 2100. Climate scientists would have to agree more than 50% possibly as high as 80%. F) will the temperature change caused by human reduction of co2 output that will occur by 2100 be greater than 0.01C. Climate scientists would have to agree 50% or more that all the effort and money we spend on this stupid problem will result in less than 0.01c change in the ultimate yenperature in 2100. This puts the context of 97% agree man caused some warming somewhere along the line from 1945 to 2016.
Here comes the usual conga line of denialist trolls, repeating their debunked talking points as though they meant anything. Yawn.
There's no such thing as AGW, because Jesus. And the constitution. And Ronald Reagan. Also, Al Gore is fat and has a beard.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten.
Consensus: 100% of scientists would have said CO2 was not a pollutant to be covered by the Clean Air Act when it was passed. If you want to cut carbon, write a new law, don't redefine pollutant to fit your ultraliberal agenda.
"A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"(g) The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used.
(h) All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being, whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants." 42 U.S. Code 7602 - Definitions https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
So a meta study on several crappy papers with significant methodological problems can yield a sterling paper?
Science!
It's interesting that all the climate science deniers do is complain about "crappy" papers when the studies that produced those papers are relatively easy and inexpensive to do? Why don't they publish their own rebuttal paper? Probably because they know they couldn't produce significantly different results than said "crappy" papers. All they've got left is to do is to nitpick.
Why stop there? "The AGW climate models predict more warming than we have seen". OK then, demonstrate to us how the climate models without AGW do better. If they can't, that means that intellectual honesty requires you to consider AGW to be a correct hypothesis until such time as a better model comes along.
And of course, no such model without AGW comes anywhere near to predicting any of the warming we have seen for the past 50 years or so; although they do just fine up till the beginning of the 20th century, Gee, why would that be? What could that mean regarding AGW and human fossil fuel burning?
Science doesn't require that a model be perfectly mathematically precisely accurate, only that it do better than any competing model.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
As much as I hate rewarding lazinness. Plenty of papers out there that argue TCR is well south of 2deg per doubling of CO2: a position that surely will get you labelled as a filthy denier. What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?. Be careful handling subversive materials not sanctioned by your tribal elders...
http://link.springer.com/artic...
You seem to be conflating TCR and ECS. TCR is Transient, ECS is Equilibrium. People tend to talk about ECS versus 2 degrees K.
IPCC AR5 estimate TCR as 1.0-2.5K (CI95). Lewis and Curry, your link, estimate it as 0.9-2.5K; not a big difference. Their CI95 ECS estimate, however, is 1.05–4.05 K.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Are these people really so dense, or do they just believe that we are?
There is no consensus by long stretch, regardless of how much they say there is. Until the science, not the waffling about how great these self-appointed pseudo-scientists are, is clear and more importantly, until their computer models actually match the temperatures measured (without blatantly hacking the numbers to suit their agenda), there will be no agreement and nothing is settled .
My comment had to do with the meta-study that quantifies the strength of agreement among climate scientists, not climate science itself. It wouldn't be that hard to redo that study and do a survey of the literature and rate the level of support for AGW.
As far as climate models, they don't have AGW built into them. They should work regardless of whether AGW is real or not. I guess running them without allowing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to affect them would be akin to running them without AGW. As you said, that doesn't work. I'm not convinced that climate models have predicted more warming than we've seen. Most judgements that say that are comparing too short a time scale and fail to take into account the noise of natural variability and it's ability to override the global warming signal on short time scales.
As George Box famously said "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Thanks, yeah I meant ECS. My understanding is that IPCC pegs it between 2 and 4.5 with likely value of around 3? Observational papers are biased low (likely less than 2), while model ones are generally above 3. My understanding is that discussions around policy heuristic of mitigate or adapt blur significantly when value is 2.
Aside from your snide remarks, I'm not sure what your point. If you actually read the articles you are talking about, they are discussing very narrow aspects of what happens from climate change, and nothing in them contradicts the link given.
Your website claims a bunch of things are the effect of AGW. The papers I linked to showed we can't determine that with any certainty. This is another example of confusion happening when translating from science papers to the non-scientific media sources.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's been proven that science is wrong more often than not ... ... ... oh well. Where do you live?? Are you a Bantu? Or a Mentawai or a Yanomani?
I guess that is why your fridge does not work more often than it does: thermodynamics
I guess that is why you can not call your friends in overseas more often than you can: general relativity, theory of gravity, rocket science, solar panels, radio waves
I guess that is why your car does not work more often than it does: geology, drilling for oil, chemistry, refining oil, metallurgy, crafting a car, geodesy, building roads that actually lead to the spot you want to go to
I guess that is why your computer is not working most often than it does: quantum mechanics, transistors, chemistry to have pure silicon etc., ahhh, sorry, you are using a Microsoft OS?
I guess that is why most of your relatives died to easy to cure illnesses than being saved by antibiotics or simple operations and x rays to find where to operate.
And I guess it is the scientists fault that your internet, your power line, your TV does not work more often than it does
You are a dumb fuck!!. The word idiot is deserved for people who have at least a few brain cells left to be able to wash and eat and dress them selves.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
the hole in the ozone layer never got large enough to do serious damage before we dealt with it.
To humans.
Not to (ant-) arctic wild life.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sigh. For someone who is concerned that other people can't read science papers, you are terribly misreading both of those. Hydroclimate variability is what they are talking about in the first paper. That's one of many aspects of climate change and it is only marginally related to what is under discussion.
I've read a lot of the IPCC report. Which evidence specifically are you referring to from it?
I too have read a lot of it, and I'm referring mostly to WG1 as a whole, and the many papers cited there.
If you feel that some/all of that evidence is not valid for some particular reason, feel free to cite peer-reviewed papers that support your case. I'd say I had a reasonable understanding of the topic for a layman, but not enough to contradict experienced climatologists who doubtless know considerably more than I do on the subject. OTOH if you feel your own subject knowledge exceeds that of the experts, then perhaps it's best if we don't waste each other's time.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Here's another one.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I too have read a lot of it, and I'm referring mostly to WG1 as a whole, and the many papers cited there.
WG1 never says that AGW is worth worrying about.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, WG1 just shows that it's happening. WG2 is the part that shows it's worth worrying about.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Just look at Tokyo I'm sure they wish they had started working on emissions controls years ago as its going to take something like 30 years to get everything switched out with things that pollute less.
Yeah, bring up Japan which shut down all its nuke plants because one plant had an issue with a tsunami. Cranking up all those fossil fuel plants should have caused issues, of course they are having issues as they choose to not use the least polluting power source we have.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Which one of those solutions pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Which is specifically talking about extreme weather events, and not what was being discussed in the original link.
Which is specifically talking about extreme weather events, and not what was being discussed in the original link.
Did you even read your link? It talks about flooding, which is an extreme weather event.
Your link also talks about sea levels, and global temperatures and sea levels, which are part of the hydroclimate mentioned in papers I linked to earlier.
Either you can't think, or you aren't thinking about what you are writing. That's not a snide remark, that's an observation.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Now you're starting to get into scientific arguments instead of appeals to authority, so that's good, keep it up. You've pointed to a specific point, and have given a body of evidence to support it (as opposed to saying, "lots of people believe it, so it must be true").
Now the scientific conversation can continue by saying, "The ipcc report rests heavily on climate models. Since it's recently been shown that much work needs to be done before they can accurately model hydroclimate variability, the ipcc report needs to be updated."
Then we can have counter arguments, and run experiments to see which side is correct. And that is science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I've been hearing about smog in tokyo in the news that's why I mentioned it. I had forgotten about them shuttering their nuke plants until you mentioned it.
Now that i've looked it appears delhi, india is the worst for air quality worldwide. That's probably one of the reasons they are wanting the cars to go all electric.
Until fukushima we were well on track to have a resurgence of nuclear power. We still seem to be but on a much smaller scale.
I often wonder If they were allowed to build new plants would they shut down the old ones or would they continue to run them until mechanical failures force them to shut down.
I Wish our US Gov't would go ahead and pick a place to store the nuclear waste they really seem to be dragging their feet on that.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Except that would be off-topic, in this article.
The discussion here is about consensus, which is and has always been a vital part of the scientific process, allowing the community as a whole to move on and produce useful results, even if a small minority of its members disagree. And the consensus discussed in TFA is about AGW, not about degrees of impact, which as you say is less firmly understood.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The discussion here is about consensus, which is and has always been a vital part of the scientific process,
Nope, you're wrong, science is about the ability to reproduce results. If you can't explain why something is true in enough detail that they can reproduce your results, then it's not science.
allowing the community as a whole to move on and produce useful results, even if a small minority of its members disagree.
You don't need to wait for the community to agree to move on. You just need to look at the evidence and decide to move on.
Consensus is not science. It's politics.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
science is about the ability to reproduce results.
And when those results have been reproduced, and confirmed and corrorborated by hundreds of papers over decades of research, yet a few die-hards still insist that the evidence is invalid and the conclusions are all wrong? This happens regularly in science.
Consensus doesn't provide 100% definitive answers or "settle" the question once and for all (arguably an impossible task); new evidence can and has changed mainstream views (though even evidence is rarely definitive either). But given that there will always be some inevitable disagreement in any complex field, how else would you suggest choosing the current best scientific opinion to be given for laymen and policymakers? If you wait until agreement is 100% total, nothing will happen - science results will get "stalled in committee". Consensus isn't picking votes out of a hat, it's the considered expert opinions of the large majority of practicing scientists, and as the saying goes it may not always be perfect but it's useful.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
1. This is several claims and a couple of them are questionable.
a. Strong? not sure about that.
b. Peer reviewed? Often by a circle jerk of a few scientists that peer review each other. What is more, several of the more powerful ones are on record threatening Journals that publish anything that calls their work into question. That undermines the whole process. What is more, a major problem with peer review is that who is peer reviewing is often kept secret. This is cited as a benefit because they don't have to fear reprisals from peers. However, it also allows for a misunderstanding as to how much rigor is in the process. Further conflicts of interest are utterly hidden. I have a problem with that.
c. just a repeat effectively of point a.
d. just a repeat of point b apparently.
2. Well, a major part of the outcry is the obvious political entanglements that damage the credibility of the whole thing.
a. As to kooks... that's merely ad hominem and has no meaning in actual science. That you cite ad hominem as an argument for your position is really just evidence against your own credibility.
b. As to not having papers challenge stuff, there are a lot of papers that challenge a lot of things in AGW and a lot of them are sustained. A big problem with challenging a lot of the stuff they do is that people like you have made it political. Lets say I have iron clad proof that you're full of shit as a scientist... is it in my interest for my career to publish that if I believe there is corruption in the peer review process, that there are conflicts of interest in the universities because of funding, and if I think that there are political issues that might get me blackballed by politicians? Best to keep my head down no? Still, people do get into it. Mostly older scientists because they have less to lose. If you destroy their career they don't care because they were retiring anyway. The younger scientists fear that people like you will see that they are flipping burgers with a PhD. Your consensus is a self fulling prophecy to a certain extent because you've created a climate of fear.
3. As to things being verified, that's actually over stated. I'll cite this by Richard Feynman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Science isn't about blind faith and dogma. You have to verify and check and be skeptical and question. Its a pity you probably won't listen to what I posted. Its entertaining on top of everything else. Shrugs.
4. More ad hominem.
As to what is and is not rational. You haven't been making rational statements. So I don't know where you get off calling anyone else rational or not. You've been spouting fallacies. Those are text book IRRATIONAL statements.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to science and democracy... you're mixing stoic empirical examination of the universe with petty human politics.
By all means, cite your political position if you like... but its a political position. It does not mean you are correct about a scientific issue. For example, if 100 percent... literally every scientist in the world said that the world was flat... but nothing otherwise in the universe changed... Would the world be flat? I grant that your consensus is correlative with correct results. However it is not causative. Correlation and causation... I don't have to break those down, right?
So yeah, the conclusivity of so called consensus is zero. It has no ability to be used as evidence of reality. You don't see people say stuff in a paper like "well, most scientists agree with this so it is probably true"... at least not in a scientific paper. Because that isn't science. That's politics.
As to the methodological flaws in the paper, I actually cited those in my first post which you have not addressed.
As to who is and is not a sophist... that's born out by the evidence. The two are indistinguishable prior to breaking it down. Now... did you want to go over the methodology or just blindly accept a study sight unseen?
Your move.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, you are partially correct. They do mention floods, and that claim is definitely questioned by the sources. (That's actually annoying, I'm fairly confident that a while ago when they originally put up that link it didn't mention floods, and they must have updated it at some point to include that claim). You are however misinterpreting the hydroclimate claim: the paper about hydroclimate is talking about how accurately one can model the variability which is distinct from the fact that sea levels and and temperature levels are increasing and that that's linked. The issue there is how much. That's included for example in the IPCC reports which points to papers which agree with that. How bad it will get in the future is where the serious modeling difficulties really start to come into play.
If you're a scientist, you need to understand the reasoning and experiments behind your field, going back to the beginning.
For example, every physicist knows about Galileo's experiments on the tower of Pisa, and could reproduce them if they had the desire (or funding). And actually, they probably have reproduced them in some form or another.
Every neuroscientist knows about Ramachandran's experiments on phantom limbs, and can reproduce them if they can find an amputee and a Q-tip.
If you are one of the unfortunate people who can't understand science, then you have no choice but to trust other people. That is unfortunate, but it's not science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
As to science and democracy... you're mixing stoic empirical examination of the universe with petty human politics.
Actually, that's what you are doing. This is a paper about measuring consensus and you are blathering on about how consensus doesn't determine the real world. That's so obvious that it wasn't even worth mentioning, let alone discussing. The paper's called "Consensus on consensus", what did you think it was about?
As to the methodological flaws in the paper, I actually cited those in my first post which you have not addressed.
The flaws you listed are so out there, that I can't even call them wrong. They don't even seem applicable to this paper. The entirety of the analysed data is listed in the paper, so the sample size is "all of them". I didn't see any mention of a phase 1, 2, or 3 in the paper, so I have no idea why you think they exist or were conducted by different people. I also don't know why you think it's both bad that the phases were supposedly conducted by different people and bad that they had access to data from earlier phases? There. Your concerns are addressed: they make absolutely no sense whatsoever in relation to the topic.
Seriously, are you refusing to take some medication? Because your comments are coming off as bat-shit crazy.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Actually its about arguing advancing a scientific position by taking a vote.
As to the rest, I apparently read the paper more closely than you. Do you want me to cite pages for you? And if I am right and you are wrong... will you kow tow? Because you've been a very fussy bunny.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history, then they have little choice but to trust the results of others. And unless they also have a detailed understanding of every contributing field, and are willing to take the time to read, grasp, and critique every significant paper in every field that's relevant to their own work, then they generally accept and trust the findings of the experts in that field as well. And since even the less squishy fields rarely achieve 100% total agreement in every detail, those findings are usually the product of the majority conclusion.
I understand many scientific principles, and I've read numerous climate papers, but I don't pretend to have a detailed knowledge of a complex field like climatology, so I'm aware that my opinion doesn't count for much in that field. If an expert like Tol says something is not the case, to contradict him would be irrational - even if what he said didn't agree with my own beliefs, I have to assume he knows something I don't.
Unless an equally expert climatologist disagreed with him. Presumably they also know things I don't. Possibly something Tol doesn't - or vice versa. I could try to judge for myself, but it's still an uninformed opinion, and it doesn't really answer the question - what is the source of their disagreement? Discounting conspiracies or kickbacks or whatever, I have to assume that the point in question is open to some interpretation. So I would reserve judgement until they can reach agreement.
And if 1000 equally expert climatologists all disagreed with Tol? Clearly his interpretation is not shared by many. Unless vital information is being hidden, perhaps Tol is a true genius among his peers, yet is unable to clearly communicate his insights - or perhaps he's just wrong. Occam's Razor suggests the latter.
For the layman observer who needs to make decisions, such a consensus provides a way to pick the more likely correct interpretation - and if further evidence comes to light that vindicates Tol, then the consensus will change, policies may also need to change, and Tol will be famous. But historically, this happens rarely. The minority is more often wrong, so the consensus interpretation is usually safest.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history,
No, but they should know how to reproduce every significant experiment in their field.
then they have little choice but to trust the results of others.
There's a difference between trusting that someone performed an experiment correctly, and trusting their interpretation. Come on man, you know that.
If an expert like Tol says something is not the case, to contradict him would be irrational - even if what he said didn't agree with my own beliefs, I have to assume he knows something I don't.
He better be able to explain himself, and lead you to the start of a chain you can follow to verify what he is saying, otherwise he's not doing science, he's bloviating.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Basic scientific fact: all species drive the evolution of all other species, and thus form interdependent chains. Natural extinctions tend to be caused by calamities that hit very nearly *all* species at once, meaning the leftovers can start from scratch.
Taking out species one at a time however is almost entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history, and it happening repeatedly in a short space of time IS entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history. There is no way to know how the death of *any* species will end up impacting us (contrary to common belief: we are not special or any less dependent on the interdependent networks of species than any other). The cause of our own species end could be the extinction of one unknown single-celled organism we didn't even know existed. That is an entirely LIKELY scientific scenario.
The main reason to preserve biodiversity is because it's utterly impossible to even begin to predict the impact of any extinction on all other species -and we're one of the species being impacted.
Extinction is part of nature, but so are we - extinction should be something we, like all other species, try to avoid - not something we fucking cause. There will never be a time when doing so is not self-defeating to the point of insanity.
Seriously "things go extinct naturally so we can cause whatever extinctions we want and it doesn't matter" has about the same effect on a biologist as you would have on a physicist if you told him you were busy banging two pieces of subcritical uranium together to keep warm.
I, for one, am prepared to bow, should I be spared, to our new Cephalopoid masters. Besides, we can't stop on a dime, who says we can affect the outcome at all?
Consensus science is mythology, not science.
Don't forget how spectacularly spot-on Phlogiston and the Ether were.
Shared conclusions are against the scientific method.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Because they can make money at it.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The bit of video I saw showed Dr Spencer arguing against genetic randomness. Maybe he believes the only other possibility is Intelligent Design? I don't know. I haven't looked into it.
And I would absolutely not be surprised IF there was contradictory evidence to "genetic randomness" that is simply ignored or dismissed out of hand. Because that's how people behave, and how you are behaving when you ignore and dismiss all the evidence that shows Cooks paper is complete garbage, regardless of whether his results happen to be consistent with other papers. Integrity of method is more important than producing "correct" results.
But I know nothing about competing genetic randomness theories, so my lack of surprise has nothing to do with the actual science, in case you misunderstood. (I haven't looked into it.) But I won't be surprised if that doesn't stop you from trying to paint me as a "neo-creationist" or whatever. Because that's how people behave.
As to the graph I posted by Spencer, what if it's accurate? What then?? Will you become a creationist?
https://climateaudit.org/2016/...