Climate Change Thread

[Beskar]

the ice age is technically still coming, the effects of acid rain could be seen on plenty of exposed statues and the likes and the ozone hole is closing again because we raplaced the problematic cooling fluids with ones that release terrible greenhouse gases. Maybe the lesson is not that someone is making up problems to scare us, but that playing with chemistry on a grand scale without thinking about any consequences can have side effects?
Besides, you forgot plastic in our fish.

I always found it weird when deniers bring things up such as Acid Rain, Ozone Layer, when we have done significant efforts to combat this pollution, and we have seen a positive shift. If anything, it proves the scientific findings were indeed correct, and the changes we made, actually benefited us. It is like saying that having catalyst converters, the drive for lead-less petrol, and other initiatives are hoaxes because we challenged and corrected the issues.

With Carbon, Fisherking points out "this benefits corporatism and governments", yet the biggest corporations affected (oil and gas industry) plough billions into manufacturing any evidence they can use to counter established independent findings (and struggle hard), rather like the tobacco industry does with smoking. Also, the government has to fork out for subsidies and incentives for alternative power resources, to promote the creation of infrastructure. I bet government would like to go "Don't need to fund this now", then use this money for other purposes, like reducing the debt deficient, for example. So I don't see the argument.. only exists if you deny climate change, support big Oil, and see Evil Government taxing them, and little whippersnapper renewal companies 'draining money', but that isn't actually benefiting corporatism or government in anyway.

The evidence for climate change is very one-sided, in that it is occurring, we see it around us, it is happening, and we can measure it. We even see the big problem areas growing worse, in places like China. We see the significant decreases in the polar caps, that new shipping lanes are opening up. It passes the 'sniff test' with flying colours. Sure, there are areas where there is finer aspects are not certain, such as: how fast is the change, where is the 'breaking point', ecological effects of certain things. Overall, the evidence is rather settled that it is occurring.*
*Outside of certain blogs and websites, where they drive their head under the sand, going "no no no" whilst blue in the face, because they have finical interest in pandering to certain groups of people to buy their store merchandise, fund their ad revenue, and receive backhanders from Oil companies.

[Fisherking]

Husar, are you sure the ozone hole is fixed? I was sure there were more chemicals they wanted to ban… Or it may have fixed it when they ended the Concorde flights. I am sure it will come back into the mix sooner or later.

Never assume what others tell you is so. Do your own research. Please!

Beskar, the term deniers would seem to point to having a deep belief in the proposition without a deep understanding of the science. It is a political statement and making a political statement on science…well.

A part of the problem is that it is not measurable. We may choose to measure some data but much can not be and what is measured, where, and when induces bias. We are hampered by our own ignorance of the complexities. We are as yet unable to devise a computer model that can replicate the past, let alone forecast the future.

It is a reasonable assumption that man has some impact on climate but it is impossible to say what that effect may be. But it is just an assumption.

My first inclination was to support the idea and that opinions to the contrary were relying on a false data set or some other bias. I would have been comfortable holding on to my beliefs but I did want to know who and why.

While I admit I was predigest against energy corporations which were primarily the opposition, it didn’t mean that the science was wrong. Contrary to my assumptions it was government and think tanks that were presenting a false narrative and using money and influence for other ends.

We don’t see climate change around us. All we see is weather. Anything occurring has to last for decades before it is even noted as a trend. We are rushing in without proper understanding. There is great pressure to jump to conclusions. It is entirely Political. It is not scientific. It has become an emotional issue and political litmus test. Most promote the utmost ignorance in an effort to convince an ill informed populous. Common knowledge can be profoundly wrong and popular assumptions dangerous.

I only suggest that you delve into it more deeply, into the scientific discipline its self to reach understanding of the complexities. Consensus is not scientific. Science is not decided by popular vote.

[Beskar]

Husar, are you sure the ozone hole is fixed? I was sure there were more chemicals they wanted to ban… Or it may have fixed it when they ended the Concorde flights. I am sure it will come back into the mix sooner or later.

Ozone Hole is still there over New Zealand, but it is recovering. It isn't actually fixed, it just isn't getting worst. It is not done with yet, but it is on its way to being resolved. Which is a generally positive sign.

Beskar, the term deniers would seem to point to having a deep belief in the proposition without a deep understanding of the science. It is a political statement and making a political statement on science…well.

There is a certain sub-section of society which seems impervious to scientific thought due to taught ignorance of the anti-scientific strain.Usually, it is the more religiously fanatical elements, such as the 6000 year old earth, or flat-earthers. I remember discussing this with a patron here, an they saw themselves as proving everyone and everything wrong by sourcing their evidence back to creationism.com. It was rather mind-boggling.

Climate Change Denial is a more 'socially acceptable' stance, because leading figures, generally US Republican Congressmen/Senators from Oil Rich states, influenced by Big Oil, that keep repeating the same lies and falsehoods, including now 'President-Elect' Trump, who says Climate Change is a conspiracy by China to weaken US Industry. They have self-centred reasons to want to perpetuate their denial, thus they will continue to do so. Unfortunately there are people who are that morally bankrupt.

I only suggest that you delve into it more deeply, into the scientific discipline its self to reach understanding of the complexities.

I am aware of the complexities, but no real point discussing them when the basics are not accepted or outright rejected. All it does is muddy the water because the other person just cherry picks random things, as if to prove to themselves the basics are wrong, when the basics are correct, but there are broader complexities to the issue.


Biggest problem when discussing scientific matters boils down to this quote, "People in this country have had enough of experts” [Michael Gove] and that is scary.

[Husar]

Husar, are you sure the ozone hole is fixed? I was sure there were more chemicals they wanted to ban… Or it may have fixed it when they ended the Concorde flights. I am sure it will come back into the mix sooner or later.

It is not fixed, but it is reported to be recovering.

Never assume what others tell you is so. Do your own research. Please!

Stop treating me like a child/idiot, please! It makes me want to break the language rules...
Montmorency has already tried to explain to you why your branch of "free-thinking" is rather mislead and I pretty much agree with him.
Your assumption that I get all my knowledge about science from the MSM or so seems rather insulting, I'm currently working on a Master's degree in computer and business science and happen to know a few basic things about physics and other things. If something clashes with what I know or think to know about science, I tend to investigate it if I have the time. The science at play here makes perfect sense, it's the opposition arguments that reek of desperation and excuses.

A part of the problem is that it is not measurable. We may choose to measure some data but much can not be and what is measured, where, and when induces bias. We are hampered by our own ignorance of the complexities. We are as yet unable to devise a computer model that can replicate the past, let alone forecast the future.

It is a reasonable assumption that man has some impact on climate but it is impossible to say what that effect may be. But it is just an assumption.

That's just another sad excuse because the science on greenhouse gases is relatively clear and easy to understand. You do not need a 100% precise model to see that pumping more of them into the air makes the planet warmer. Especially considering that we simultanously happen to destroy several of the planet's measures of storing said greenhouse gases away from the atmosphere. Whether you know the exact amount and exact temperature change is not quite relevant to see that there is a problem. Especially when you can measure the effects. Unless you want to argue that our thermometer technologies are not exact enough or that melting ice and permafrost grounds are optical illusions?

The models we currently have may not be perfect, but that does not mean they are fundamentally wrong. Newtonian Physics are not perfect either, but would you not trust them to be able to calculate the impact energy of a frontal car crash when the speeds and masses involved are known? Your assumption that one needs a perfect model for any given purpose is not correct, what one needs is a model that is sufficient for the intended purpose. And the models we have are sufficient to say that our pumping greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere is changing the climate, because the relevant effects are known well enough. Your argument on the other hand seems to hinge on the idea that there could be some secret unknown factor that could cause a shift in temperature so fast that it would be as big as the one our production of CO2 would cause but our production of CO2 would not be it.
For reference, look up Venus, now I won't claim that we made it so hot, but it shows very clearly what a lot of greenhouse gases can do to the climate of a planet. There is even satellite data that shows where the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere come from, and it just so happen to be industrialized countries.

My first inclination was to support the idea and that opinions to the contrary were relying on a false data set or some other bias. I would have been comfortable holding on to my beliefs but I did want to know who and why.

While I admit I was predigest against energy corporations which were primarily the opposition, it didn’t mean that the science was wrong. Contrary to my assumptions it was government and think tanks that were presenting a false narrative and using money and influence for other ends.

We don’t see climate change around us. All we see is weather. Anything occurring has to last for decades before it is even noted as a trend. We are rushing in without proper understanding. There is great pressure to jump to conclusions. It is entirely Political. It is not scientific. It has become an emotional issue and political litmus test. Most promote the utmost ignorance in an effort to convince an ill informed populous. Common knowledge can be profoundly wrong and popular assumptions dangerous.

I only suggest that you delve into it more deeply, into the scientific discipline its self to reach understanding of the complexities. Consensus is not scientific. Science is not decided by popular vote.

More baseless allegations. Noone said we're right because of consensus or popular opinion, I asked you specifically to talk about the scientific side and you return with "don't be a sheep!".

As for your arguments, way too simple. We also don't see radio waves, that doesn't mean we should doubt their existence. As for "rushing in without proper understanding", that's just hilarious, because the entire industrialization process was performed exactly like that...
You cannot do something you do not understand and then deny that rolling back parts of it due to a problem that occurred is a bad idea because we have no idea what we're doing in the first place. By your logic, we should raze the entire chemical industry because we have no idea what all their inventions are doing on a planetary scale.

A similar thing happened with refrigerators and the ozone hole. They were using coolants containing Chlorofluorocarbon and when it was found that this reacts very badly with the ozone layer, new chemicals were found that don't, but also act a coolant. Now it has been found that dumped refrigerators leak these chemicals and they are incredibly powerful greenhouse gases. You would now probably argue that the attempts to save the ozone layer were stupid because we had no idea what the new chemicals would do. So you'd argue to return to Chlorofluorocarbon. But if you thought your logic to it's actual logical conclusion, we should have never invented refrigerators in the first place because we had no clue what we were doing. Declaring the ozone hole a conspiracy instead is just lazy and greedy. My solution would be to make an effort to recycle or dismantle refrigerators instead of dumping them somewhere to prevent too many chemicals from escaping into the atmosphere.

Perhaps you could explain to me what now is so potentially dangerous and silly about reducing our emissions that we should not do it anyway? Have you ever been to a country with lots of cars and little or no restrictions on emissions? I can't say for sure whether it was the height or the gases or both, but when I went to Bogotá, I had a mixture of slime and blood in my nose several times a day for a week or two until I got used to it. Seeing a big black puff of smoke coming out of some of the buses and cars didn't lead me to the conclusion that it's probably worth the jobs it creates either way.

The biggest problem of the little man is not government restrictions on the industry, it is inequality, and neither the "left" nor the "right" want to change anything about that in most countries, or they just don't get elected.
Here's a propaganda piece from the MSM on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/op...last.html?_r=1
It's for a different thread in the end though.

[Pannonian]

Ozone Hole is still there over New Zealand, but it is recovering. It isn't actually fixed, it just isn't getting worst. It is not done with yet, but it is on its way to being resolved. Which is a generally positive sign.



There is a certain sub-section of society which seems impervious to scientific thought due to taught ignorance of the anti-scientific strain.Usually, it is the more religiously fanatical elements, such as the 6000 year old earth, or flat-earthers. I remember discussing this with a patron here, an they saw themselves as proving everyone and everything wrong by sourcing their evidence back to creationism.com. It was rather mind-boggling.

Climate Change Denial is a more 'socially acceptable' stance, because leading figures, generally US Republican Congressmen/Senators from Oil Rich states, influenced by Big Oil, that keep repeating the same lies and falsehoods, including now 'President-Elect' Trump, who says Climate Change is a conspiracy by China to weaken US Industry. They have self-centred reasons to want to perpetuate their denial, thus they will continue to do so. Unfortunately there are people who are that morally bankrupt.

The Chinese government are one of the more rigorous believers in climate change and the need to take greener measures. Not because they want to constrict other countries into an economic advantage. But because, having jumped relative light years in industrial development in a short space of time, they've seen how they've fecked up their own land.

I am aware of the complexities, but no real point discussing them when the basics are not accepted or outright rejected. All it does is muddy the water because the other person just cherry picks random things, as if to prove to themselves the basics are wrong, when the basics are correct, but there are broader complexities to the issue.


Biggest problem when discussing scientific matters boils down to this quote, "People in this country have had enough of experts” [Michael Gove] and that is scary.

People comment about China's lack of democracy, but that Gove comment is liberal democracy at its worst. The belief that one is entitled to one's own opinion regardless of facts, and sheltering behind the principle that one vote is worth the same as any other. We still have a Second House to offer advice, but May has threatened to abolish that too.

[Beskar]

The Chinese government are one of the more rigorous believers in climate change and the need to take greener measures. Not because they want to constrict other countries into an economic advantage. But because, having jumped relative light years in industrial development in a short space of time, they've seen how they've fecked up their own land.

I admit, I haven't actually looked at Chinese opinion, but I know they have some very serious ecological issues due to rapid and mass industrialisation, especially with the ever looming Beijing smog, and this is similar in India with New Delhi. I think it is actually a very good sign they want to tackle the issue head-on as you just said. I will need to add it on a reading list for some articles on the issue.

People comment about China's lack of democracy, but that Gove comment is liberal democracy at its worst. The belief that one is entitled to one's own opinion regardless of facts, and sheltering behind the principle that one vote is worth the same as any other. We still have a Second House to offer advice, but May has threatened to abolish that too.

I agree. An 'expert' is generally with someone with 20 years in that specific field and has a PhD within it, and actively contributing to that field. They are definitely some of the most knowledgeable and talented people, who are often ignored for political reasons (this is where politics/science don't mix well), and only brought out when someone needs an expert opinion on something.

What I found funny, I was watching a Climate Denier video a few years back, and they brought on their own panel of 'experts', and I remember this speaker on there who looked like he might have a qualification (rest didn't), and he was like, "I looked at the evidence, it is hogwash" proudly pointing out the fact he is a 'Dr'. So I google searched for this 'expert', turns out he has a PhD In Sports Physiology at this random low-quality Evangelist Christian University in an Oil state. They really had to scrape the barrel there, and tried to obscure the fact he knew nothing.

I have respect for people like Richard Muller though. He was a skeptic who had some concerns, and he put research where is mouth was, went out, independently verified that the evidence was correct, held up his hands and went "I was wrong, we need to do something about this.".

Edit: On random searching, I came across "Being Skeptical on Climate Change Skepticism", the premesis amused me.

[Gilrandir]

For reference, look up Venus, now I won't claim that we made it so hot, but it shows very clearly what a lot of greenhouse gases can do to the climate of a planet.

Perhaps it was vice versa - the climatic (and other) conditions of the planet caused the build up of greenhouse gases.

[Husar]

Perhaps it was vice versa - the climatic (and other) conditions of the planet caused the build up of greenhouse gases.

And then it got even hotter. Being a bit closer to the sun alone cannot explain the really high temperatures.
Of course an increase in temperature can lead to an increase in greenhouse gases, that's what we're worried about on Earth as well. The melting of the ice, the permafrost and so on will release more methane for example. Then you get increased levels of water vapor in the air, which has the same effect...

[Pannonian]

Perhaps it was vice versa - the climatic (and other) conditions of the planet caused the build up of greenhouse gases.

Which should warn against entering the self-perpetuating circle. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter, except to smart arse philosophers? If one leads to the other which leads to one, it doesn't really matter which is the first or second. Just keep out of that circle as far as you reasonably can. Besides, there are plenty of other reasons for cutting down on energy consumption. Your relations with your chief energy supplier should be proof enough of that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Besides, there are plenty of other reasons for cutting down on energy consumption. Your relations with your chief energy supplier should be proof enough of that.

This has always been the more compelling argument for me.

[Husar]

I don't care why you come to the party, as long as we dance together and have fun.

[Gilrandir]

Your relations with your chief energy supplier should be proof enough of that.

You mean gas supplier? Then a correction: ex-chief.

[HopAlongBunny]

A little Arctic warmth for Christmas:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-normal/

[Gilrandir]

Not sure it belongs to the thread, but there's no reason to start a new one to post it. It is environment-connected anyway.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38388351

[Beskar]

Not sure it belongs to the thread, but there's no reason to start a new one to post it. It is environment-connected anyway.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38388351

Totally unrelated...

[Husar]

I'd say if someone dropped poo onto my house, the climate in my house would be very likely to get much worse...

[HopAlongBunny]

Not hotter than July, but still a record 3rd straight "hottest year":

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ntists-declare

[Xiahou]

Whistleblower reveals that NOAA faked the data in it's "pause-buster" paper.
This is really shameful.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

[Montmorency]

Whistleblower reveals that NOAA faked the data in it's "pause-buster" paper.
This is really shameful.

Contested.

On Sunday, the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday alleged a seemingly juicy (if unoriginal) climate science scandal. At its core, though, it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing.

No evidence of "faked" data.

[HopAlongBunny]

So what if the ocean warms up a little?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/...aths-1.3976332

Might be nice if you want to go for a swim...not so good if your food disappears.

[Beskar]

Yeah, sourcing Daily Mail is funny, even Wikipedia (of all) says it is terrible and banned it, thus causing a world war between the pair of them. Probably for another thread, but popcorn is ready.

[Montmorency]

Best place to put this on short notice:

Northern California has seen relief this winter of its drought and water scarcity, but now there's just too much and the Oroville dam area is being evacuated in anticipation of uncontrolled spill from rising water levels.

http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...htmlstory.html
https://livestream.com/KRCR/events/3724366

[a completely inoffensive name]

Best place to put this on short notice:

Northern California has seen relief this winter of its drought and water scarcity, but now there's just too much and the Oroville dam area is being evacuated in anticipation of uncontrolled spill from rising water levels.

http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...htmlstory.html
https://livestream.com/KRCR/events/3724366

It was not too long ago I was visiting the site of the Saint Francis Dam (look it up). California's water infrastructure is more vulnerable than most care to realize. I am sure large portions of civil engineering text books came from California's mistakes.

Oroville is relatively modern (1968) compared to some I visit on a regular basis (Mulholland Dam). What confuses me is the politicization of this I see on the internet.

There really is no testing of these kind of spillways unless you somehow wanted to waste millions of gallons of water just to overflow a dam. The only real issue to pay attention to was the failure of the concrete main spillway.
But this just goes back to what we have learned many times over, we have no money for our own infrastructure, but tens of billions to build Iraq's.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...There really is no testing of these kind of spillways unless you somehow wanted to waste millions of gallons of water just to overflow a dam. The only real issue to pay attention to was the failure of the concrete main spillway. But this just goes back to what we have learned many times over, we have no money for our own infrastructure, but tens of billions to build Iraq's.

That last sentence could have been written by candidate Trump.

[Husar]

That last sentence could have been written by candidate Trump.

Or anyone really, apart from the Iraq reference perhaps.
Maybe Trump should just raze such threatened dams in light of the new oil pipelines that will be ready soon. Just put an oil power plant there.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That last sentence could have been written by candidate Trump.

And you know what? He wasn't wrong when it came to Iraq.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And you know what? He wasn't wrong when it came to Iraq.

I did not say he was....merely noted the coincidence.

[Tristuskhan]

But this just goes back to what we have learned many times over, we have no money for our own infrastructure, but tens of billions to build Iraq's.

Tens of billions to destroy Iraqi infrastructures (twice!), then tens of billions to rebuid it. Damn Iraqis, obviously.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I did not say he was....merely noted the coincidence.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. In my head I read my last reply in more of an incredulous (not accusing) voice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Iraq has always chafed my....whatever.

Neo-con hawks wanted regime change as a geopolitical lever against Iran. I get it. So where did all those bright bulbs come up with the "after Saddam it will be flowers and an eruption of republican democracy" scenario? Which is the only level for which we were staffed and prepared initially. Still galls me a decade plus later.