Congrats to US and China on Climate Change

[shickingbrits]

It's hard to say in these hypothetical situations...

Who knows, the guy's kid may only have Chinese citizenship and the wife may threaten to send the kid back to China whenever she doesn't get her way, and have it raised by a hateful grandmother in a backwater village being taught to hate the father as it grows up.

Or something.

[demonfork]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111055.htm

Thanks. I don't have a whole lot of time right now to look into this. However, I skimmed the paper. It is quite technical so it would take a bit to digest. However, if the summary is to be trusted, the key part is

Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.

The paper itself, in the conclusions section, is simply arguing that some of the negative feedback effects from water might be as strong as the positive feedback ones. If that's true, it still leaves the warming directly from the CO2 itself, which is non-negligible. Either way, it's not arguing that water is negating the effect of CO2. It states openly the well known fact that CO2 triggers more water vapor, and argues that there's another feedback which may ultimately counteract this water feedback.

Anyway, I feel like we've made progress. We agree that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the planet, and now we're just discussing whether that's enough to significantly warm the planet.

This is progress?

Clearly you haven't been keeping up... let me help you out.



Question- Do the elements in the Earths atmosphere contribute to the regulation of atmospheric temperatures by means of trapping amounts of heat form the Sun so that it doesn't all escape into space?

Answer- Obviously the answer is yes. Unfortunately mets can't seem to comprehend that this isn't what the debate is about.


Question- What is the debate really about?

Answer - 1. Are the atmospheric co2 contributions from mankind dramatically affecting the Earths rise/fall in temperature. Will this increasing contribution lead to global wide devastation with cities underwater, dead polar bears, next ice-age, tsunamis....(any or all of the other sky is falling scenarios outlined in Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth"?)

2. Are we imminently screwed to the point to where we need to give more of our money to world governments, friendly corporations & Al Gore so that they can save us all from the madness?

[BigBallinStalin]

I like how several of the critics found an Environmentalists' blog post as evidence in favor of their skeptical stance without explaining the methodological 'mistake' that occurred. It's as if they don't really understand what was going on there (I certainly don't, but you don't see me leaping to conclusions).

P.S. Bjorn Lomborg is a fun. It's a shame to see how many pro-environmentalists bash him for being skeptical (not necessarily on climate change but on all sorts of issues like faulty statistics which environmentalist lobby groups rely on). He shows them where they need to strengthen their arguments, but a lot of them just shit on him. Pretty rude.

[Metsfanmax]

Question- Do the elements in the Earths atmosphere contribute to the regulation of atmospheric temperatures by means of trapping amounts of heat form the Sun so that it doesn't all escape into space?

Answer- Obviously the answer is yes. Unfortunately mets can't seem to comprehend that this isn't what the debate is about.

The fact that the answer is "yes" means quite a lot. We know that it is carbon dioxide and water that are what trap almost all of this heat. We know that the amount of water in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature, and so water itself does not trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, but an unrelated forcing (such as carbon dioxide) can trigger a positive feedback loop similar to a runaway greenhouse effect. Empirical evidence of this is that the end of the previous ice ages is very well correlated with substantial increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Therefore, to believe that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which is territory we'll soon be in) has absolutely no serious risks attached to it, means you're just not paying attention. Yes, with more detailed modelling we may find that a whole bunch of negative feedbacks conspire together to quench the warming. But why would this be your prior belief? There's nothing to inform it. Everything we know about the greenhouse effect suggests that it is capable of having serious positive feedbacks. Hoping that everything will be OK just because that's what you'd prefer to believe may be nice psychology, but it's not good science.

I like how several of the critics found an Environmentalists' blog post as evidence in favor of their skeptical stance without explaining the methodological 'mistake' that occurred.

I don't think they understand it. It's too technical for someone to really have a grasp on without at least a basic understanding of how temperature records are maintained and harmonized.

P.S. Bjorn Lomborg is a fun. It's a shame to see how many pro-environmentalists bash him for being skeptical (not necessarily on climate change but on all sorts of issues like faulty statistics which environmentalist lobby groups rely on). He shows them where they need to strengthen their arguments, but a lot of them just shit on him. Pretty rude.

He does have a point to make, but the problem is that he often seriously misrepresents the actual state of the science. So he's shooting himself in the foot when he could be having a much larger impact.

[demonfork]

Check out this documentary... it does an excellent job of breaking down the farce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_T ... al_Warming

Your own link supports the thing I've been calling for in this thread.

Lomborg concludes that a limited carbon tax is needed in the First World

Please take your own advice and don't post random quotes taken out of context. Watch the fucking documentary before you comment about it. I've watched it 3 times, there is very little if anything in the documentary that outlines what you support/believe.

Instead of Lomborg, a political scientist by training, I'd prefer to look at what actual climate scientists say about what's currently happening in climate science. Cook et al. (2013) demonstrates quite clearly that the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science literature concurs that humans are causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions. 97%, in fact. If you wish to counter this claim, please do your own analysis and get back to us.

Of course, we don't need a formal study to realize how absurd it is to argue that there aren't really any scientists who take that position. The IPCC's assessment reports, which all agree with this conclusion, are written by hundreds of scientists reviewing thousands of papers in the climate science literature.

You keep throwing out this "science consensus" IPCC blah, blah bullshit like it's some kind of trump card.

Last time I checked consensus isn't any part of the scientific method. I could give a shit about consensus.

In the 1800's most scientists believed that light propagated thru the vacuum of space via "luminous space aether"... how'd that work out?

[Metsfanmax]

You keep throwing out this "science condenses" IPCC blah, blah bullshit like it's some kind of trump card.

Last time I checked condenses isn't any part of the scientific method. I could give a shit about condenses.

In the 1800's most scientists believed that light propagated thru the vacuum of space via "luminous space aether"... how'd that work out?

Before I respond, I just want to make sure I understand your argument. You are saying that the reason we should ignore the risks about climate change, given everything we have spent decades learning about the way the climate system works and responds to forcings, is that something equivalent to Einstein's theory of relativity will come in and radically transform our understanding of fluid mechanics? That's really your bet?

[demonfork]

You keep throwing out this "science condenses" IPCC blah, blah bullshit like it's some kind of trump card.

Last time I checked condenses isn't any part of the scientific method. I could give a shit about condenses.

In the 1800's most scientists believed that light propagated thru the vacuum of space via "luminous space aether"... how'd that work out?

Before I respond, I just want to make sure I understand your argument. You are saying that the reason we should ignore the risks about climate change, given everything we have spent decades learning about the way the climate system works and responds to forcings, is that something equivalent to Einstein's theory of relativity will come in and radically transform our understanding of fluid mechanics? That's really your bet?

You continue to miss the point. I'm convinced that it's a symptom of your extreme tunnel vision.

[Metsfanmax]

You keep throwing out this "science condenses" IPCC blah, blah bullshit like it's some kind of trump card.

Last time I checked condenses isn't any part of the scientific method. I could give a shit about condenses.

In the 1800's most scientists believed that light propagated thru the vacuum of space via "luminous space aether"... how'd that work out?

Before I respond, I just want to make sure I understand your argument. You are saying that the reason we should ignore the risks about climate change, given everything we have spent decades learning about the way the climate system works and responds to forcings, is that something equivalent to Einstein's theory of relativity will come in and radically transform our understanding of fluid mechanics? That's really your bet?

You continue to miss the point. I'm convinced that it's a symptom of your extreme tunnel vision.

Then what is the point? If your argument is that the entire scientific community can be wrong, it's a true and completely irrelevant one. Our theories about the ether at the time were based on physics that we couldn't test and did not really affect us either way. Same is true about our understanding of Newtonian gravity. It wasn't until decades after Einstein's discovery of general relativity that we even really built machines that actually depended on knowing about it. So it's understandable that scientists missed these things. On the other hand, our basic ideas of thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and radiative transfer are so fundamental and so well tested that the idea that somehow we're just wrong, and in a very unsubtle way, about the first law of thermodynamics is astronomically unlikely, to say the least. So even if I grant you that every once in a while we have scientific revolutions (and if I did, it still wouldn't justify completely ignoring the risks of climate change), when is the last time one occurred that completely negated decades or centuries of experimental results? Is your bet really that we don't understand how thermometers work, and so the record we have of 1.4 degrees of global warming since 1880 is just completely bogus?

Please, enlighten me to what your point actually is, if it's not that. Please tell me why nineteenth century physicists' belief in the luminiferous ether means we should just stick our head in the sand on this issue. Maybe you think that saying "scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method" is some sort of clever reason why we should ignore the considered wisdom of thousands of really smart people. I don't really know. I can't tell if you actually have a point, or are just looking for reasons not to believe what's happening because that's what is convenient.

[demonfork]

You keep throwing out this "science condenses" IPCC blah, blah bullshit like it's some kind of trump card.

Last time I checked condenses isn't any part of the scientific method. I could give a shit about condenses.

In the 1800's most scientists believed that light propagated thru the vacuum of space via "luminous space aether"... how'd that work out?

Before I respond, I just want to make sure I understand your argument. You are saying that the reason we should ignore the risks about climate change, given everything we have spent decades learning about the way the climate system works and responds to forcings, is that something equivalent to Einstein's theory of relativity will come in and radically transform our understanding of fluid mechanics? That's really your bet?

You continue to miss the point. I'm convinced that it's a symptom of your extreme tunnel vision.

Then what is the point? If your argument is that the entire scientific community can be wrong, it's a true and completely irrelevant one. Our theories about the ether at the time were based on physics that we couldn't test and did not really affect us either way. Same is true about our understanding of Newtonian gravity. It wasn't until decades after Einstein's discovery of general relativity that we even really built machines that actually depended on knowing about it. So it's understandable that scientists missed these things. On the other hand, our basic ideas of thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and radiative transfer are so fundamental and so well tested that the idea that somehow we're just wrong, and in a very unsubtle way, about the first law of thermodynamics is astronomically unlikely, to say the least. So even if I grant you that every once in a while we have scientific revolutions (and if I did, it still wouldn't justify completely ignoring the risks of climate change), when is the last time one occurred that completely negated decades or centuries of experimental results? Is your bet really that we don't understand how thermometers work, and so the record we have of 1.4 degrees of global warming since 1880 is just completely bogus?

Please, enlighten me to what your point actually is, if it's not that. Please tell me why nineteenth century physicists' belief in the luminiferous ether means we should just stick our head in the sand on this issue. Maybe you think that saying "scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method" is some sort of clever reason why we should ignore the considered wisdom of thousands of really smart people. I don't really know. I can't tell if you actually have a point, or are just looking for reasons not to believe what's happening because that's what is convenient.

it's funny how you are trying to equate the complexity of trending Earths atmospheric temperature to "understanding how thermometers work".

You and I both know that this "record of 1.4 deg since 1980" and how this number was DERIVED is infinitely more complex than simply utilizing the understanding of a simple measuring device.

and I'm sorry that the point continues to escape you. I don't think any amount of enlightenment could change this.

[Metsfanmax]

it's funny how you are trying to equate the complexity of trending Earths atmospheric temperature to "understanding how thermometers work".

You and I both know that this "record of 1.4 deg since 1980" and how this number was DERIVED is infinitely more complex than simply utilizing the understanding of a simple measuring device.

What do you estimate the chances are, that the derivation is wrong enough to negate the conclusion that the Earth is warming and has been for decades? Are they higher than 50%? What about 10%? 1%?

[shickingbrits]

I think his point was rather clear when he linked to Bjorn Lombard. There are many ways to skin a cat, and yours is based not on the cat or the skin but on how much you will be paid to do it.

Lombard at no point rejected climate change. In fact, at all points he maintained it. What he did was to define it a bit more fairly taking the best data and then find the most effective solutions to deal with it.

You don't want to define it other than calling it a massive problem that needs massive money and are trying to hoodwink the real extent of the problem, create a misrepresentative consensus and allow the government to spend massive amounts of dollars in the process.

It is quite funny how you called Lombard a political scientist, when you are a lobbyist.

[Metsfanmax]

Lombard at no point rejected climate change. In fact, at all points he maintained it. What he did was to define it a bit more fairly taking the best data

We have a process for "taking the best data." It involves a massive literature review by hundreds of scientists writing hundreds of pages. (And the IPCC reports, by the way, are well known for being conservative among scientists.) What makes you think that anyone should care at all what Lombord's perspective is on "the best data?" If he has something to contribute, it is in forcing us to consider the true cost-benefit analysis of what we're doing. But he's artificially obscuring the costs by misrepresenting the science and not taking the best data, so his actual conclusions are suspect.

You don't want to define it other than calling it a massive problem

I would love for it not to be a massive problem. Then I could stop paying for Amtrak rides to DC, and think about other things. But I'll raise the same question I raised before. Put yourself in my shoes. Suppose you did in fact believe that it is a massive problem. What would you do?

that needs massive money

I don't think it needs "massive money." I think the government should get exactly zero dollars as a result of this problem. I feel that I have been quite clear on this point. But someone needs to levy the fee and then redistribute it properly, and we already have an infrastructure set up to do just that.

It is quite funny how you called Lombard a political scientist, when you are a lobbyist.

I'm a citizen. A citizen of a representative democracy has a duty to inform his or her representative of what is important to that citizen. I do not understand why this should be a controversial thing to do.

[shickingbrits]

Oh dear.

Why do I feel we have gone nowhere?

Oh right.

Let's try again. When the government gets their hands on our money, you will have no more say in it than I will, or a guy smoking a pipe in a Hugo novel.

You can point to BC and say how effective the redistribution is. I can point to Cuba and say how cheap the healthcare is. Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Let's see what I started this thread with: an empty marketing campaign perpetrated by the President and lauded, actual headlines calling it "revolutionary" in progressive papers. So let's come to grips with the fact that you have zero say in how the money is spent.

I really can't believe that you believe that the money will be redistributed. But let's have a go. The per capita emissions of CO2 is 20 tonnes. Where does this happen? Can I control this? What am I getting for my and my kids share? I think that Lombard had a Nobel prize winning economist figure it out. For my share, I get a 0.01 C reduction in warming by 2100. Or I could paint my roof white and see a greater reduction.

Which bureau is going to oversee this and redistribute the money? I hope they nationalize Disney, oh I hope it's Daffy Duck that I get to deal with. Maybe he can help me paint my roof while I tell him to go f*ck himself.

[Metsfanmax]

Put yourself in my shoes. Suppose you did in fact believe that it is a massive problem. What would you do?

[shickingbrits]

Take a walk down to the beach and say shit, we've already pumped half our fossil fuels into the air, and all is well. No wave is coming to kill me, it's as nice a walk as it ever was, maybe I should get a real job.

[mrswdk]

It's hard to say in these hypothetical situations...

Who knows, the guy's kid may only have Chinese citizenship and the wife may threaten to send the kid back to China whenever she doesn't get her way, and have it raised by a hateful grandmother in a backwater village being taught to hate the father as it grows up.

Or something.

Sorry to be blunt but hypothetical wife's a bitch dude. What the f*ck kind of way is that to negotiate with your other half?

[Metsfanmax]

Take a walk down to the beach and say shit, we've already pumped half our fossil fuels into the air, and all is well. No wave is coming to kill me, it's as nice a walk as it ever was, maybe I should get a real job.

OK. Thanks for having a respectful conversation.

[shickingbrits]

I'm sure this guy was smart enough to liquidate their assets in China, which were in her name, buy fixed assets in Canada, get a immigration lawyer to deal speed along the citizenship of his child, and seek marriage counseling that became one-on-one for his sweet wife.

Making a change to Canada is rather drastic. The important thing is to protect your kids from any hardship that might entail.

[mrswdk]

lol, a true Middle Kingdom relationship. Best of luck to hypothetical guy.

[shickingbrits]

Sorry bro, but you are a lobbyist. I am anti-government. I think I made that clear. If not, I'm sorry. I'm anti-government.

A lobbyist doesn't give a damn about the problem. A lobbyist doesn't give a damn about the solution. A lobbyists job is to get money for whoever he is lobbying for. And you don't do too badly, but really trying a sob story on me is like nasty. It leaves me feeling slightly repulsed. A tobacco lobbyists, a insurance lobbyists, were there slave lobbyists back in the day?

If you truly believe all this nonsense, which I don't believe for a second that you do, then you are quite silly.

Every single climate model predicts higher temperatures than we have seen. Every one of them is wrong. Don't treat me like an idiot. Soon you are going to get so wrapped up in spin that you will lose sight of up and down.

You are obviously not a dumbass. I'm sure you can find something good to do with your life.

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry bro, but you are a lobbyist.

I don't know why you got that impression, but I'm not a professional lobbyist. I am a graduate student working on a Ph.D. in astrophysics. This stuff is what I volunteer to do in the little free time I have.

[shickingbrits]

Then be a real scientist.

Groups of scientists wrote books on why Einstein was wrong, his reply, a single paper would suffice.

Good luck on your thesis.

[Metsfanmax]

Then be a real scientist.

Why do you think I am presently not being a real scientist?

Good luck on your thesis.

Thank you.

[notyou2]

Making a new account is against the rules.

I quite clearly am a rule follower. I was acquitted of being a multi.

Why some people may make a new account, pure speculation...

Perhaps their wife was annoyed with the amount of time they spent on CC and deliberately got them banned. The wife then changed the account password. If it were a long ban, let's say 6 months, then the person couldn't rejoin for that period of time anyways. After that period of time, the person would have to somehow bother getting a new password, and being a spontaneous decision, might not bother with the formalities when their old account had been reduced to a rookies points anyways and the username had been denied changing by admin prior to the ban.

But who knows the devious minds of rule breakers? Probably not even worth speculating.

So this is you eh? _sabotage_

Why should anyone believe a multimaker? If you cheat at a game, surely you cheat at life.

[Metsfanmax]

Making a new account is against the rules.

I quite clearly am a rule follower. I was acquitted of being a multi.

Why some people may make a new account, pure speculation...

Perhaps their wife was annoyed with the amount of time they spent on CC and deliberately got them banned. The wife then changed the account password. If it were a long ban, let's say 6 months, then the person couldn't rejoin for that period of time anyways. After that period of time, the person would have to somehow bother getting a new password, and being a spontaneous decision, might not bother with the formalities when their old account had been reduced to a rookies points anyways and the username had been denied changing by admin prior to the ban.

But who knows the devious minds of rule breakers? Probably not even worth speculating.

So this is you eh? _sabotage_

Wasn't it obvious by the incessant rambling about hempcrete?