Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

You seem to enjoy that patronizing tone. I get the feeling that your AGW denialism is based more on desire to look smarter than everyone else than it is on an impartial examination of the data.

It's mainly an awareness that we can't have an interesting conversation on the topic until you improve your knowledge. Any conversation until then will be me teaching, with you arguing all the way. That's not very fun for me, so instead I'll try to motive you to learn on your own.

When you're done, we can have an enjoyable conversation, and probably both learn.

On what basis do you think you're more knowledgeable? There were two issues, one I forget the exact issue which was just a dumb mistake on my part, but before that Amiga3D's initial statement had a flawed premise which I overlooked which led me to make an inaccurate statement (and led to my subsequent confusion).

Amiga said "I remember climate experts shouting back in the last millennium that if we didn't do radical change by 2000 it'd be too late to make a difference. Why does that target date keep moving?"

The flaw is that 2000 was probably the date to avoid significant AGW entirely, it's not too late to make a difference, it's just too late to miss it entirely. We can no longer avoid it so we have new rough deadlines we can try to hit to avoid some of the probable future consequences.

You can't give an exact date or number because both the action we take (how much we reduce CO2 and methane) and the results we get (heat, storms, droughts), even if they could be perfectly predicted are on a sliding scale. It looks like moving the goalposts because that's what we're doing, 200x is past, xxx PPM is past, we're going to get some global warming, so lets choose a new goal and try to accomplish that instead.

That's all the old 200x quotes really show.

Comment Re:Not Prudent (Score 1) 378

You can use that standard it you want to but it's kinda useless in practice. Say it turns out that low levels of background radiation are good for us, does that mean radiation is no longer pollution?

Actually yes.

There are background levels of radiation. In amounts around as high as that, radiation is not really pollution.

The same goes for CO2. The amounts we are emitting are not nearly enough to be pollution, the ONLY concern was the RUNAWAY greenhouse effect, which is not happening.

So if AGW was a real threat would you consider CO2 pollution?

Forget about decades of research and thousands of peer reviewed papers.

You are forgetting about the same decades having many papers showing there is no runaway warming.

I don't know if you're being cute with the term 'runaway warming', referring to the short investigation into cooling, or are talking about denialist cargo-cult journals. If you're going to claim there's no scientific consensus around AGW then we're no longer discussing the same reality and I'll just claim 1998 was an outlier because of the emergence of Sauron.

There's also the worry that the changing climate will lead to larger storm surges

The "more XTREME Weather" line is the equivalent of "we took away all your privacy and freedom because of the CHILDREN".

Ahh, now I understand your model of the climate science community:

Step 1) Create a fake global warming scare

Step 2) ?

Step 3) PROFIT

Because all the science indicates that it almost certainly IS happening.

Science should look up the overall levels of Earth temperatures because there is no runaway warming, and hardly any warming of any sort at the moment.

But in reality of course, many real scientists would not agree with your statement.

Ahh yes, countless scientists studying the climate simply forgot to check the thermometers, it's a common mistake.

And I'm going to assume your 'many real scientists' doesn't include many climate scientists. I can show you a list of creationist scientists as well, I guess Kan Ham was right!

Comment Re:Not Prudent (Score 2, Informative) 378

Just because CO2 does not directly cause adverse changes the way Chernobyl or Bhopal did does not mean that CO2 is not pollution.

The fact that the entire plant kingdom relies on CO2 rules it out as pollution for me. The Earth's whole ecosystem is devoted to processing CO2. It's probably the most benign thing we could possibly be emitting.

You can use that standard it you want to but it's kinda useless in practice. Say it turns out that low levels of background radiation are good for us, does that mean radiation is no longer pollution? We use sound to talk, I guess I can open a night club next to your house because there's no such thing as noise pollution.

A much better standard is pollution is anything that's harmful when emitted in excess or the wrong circumstance, CO2 emissions are harming the planet right now, thus they're pollution.

A rapid increase in temperatures basically undermine all that investment we have made.

As I said it's clear that will not happen. CO2 levels have risen heavily, temperatures is flat. It's clear that the levels of XO2 we are producing are not enough to cause a runaway effect.

Forget about decades of research and thousands of peer reviewed papers. They apparently were just doing a grade 3 science fair experiment with glass jar, you've pointed that out and now none of us have to worry and can go back to seeing what happens if we drop nails in Coke.

Many of our largest population and industrial centers are in areas directly threatened by rising sea water.

NOTHING is threatened by sea level rise of around a foot over 100 years. That is LOTS of time to adapt and shift. We also can tell now the absurd predictions of 20 feet sea level rise are not going to happen either. Even the IPCC admits that now.

There's also the worry that the changing climate will lead to larger storm surges which combined with the sea levels could cause a lot more damage. Though I'd agree that the other consequences from global warming are a lot more serious.

We should do our best to mitigate that and slow down the increase in the greenhouse effect

Why should we expend any effort to stop something that is not happening, when all that effort can go to fight real issues?

That's the thing that tans my hide. People are expending so much effort to fight CO2 that real problems are utterly ignored. The planet is being fucked for sure but it's not by CO2, and all action taken against CO2 is to me the same as action against the planet.

Because all the science indicates that it almost certainly IS happening. You are apparently not convinced, I don't know why, but the fact that you do not agree with the science does not jeopardize my belief in the science at all because nearly all the very smart and honest people who study the topic agree that it is happening and it's a serious problem.

Comment Re:Just say "No" (Score 1) 410

Per capita you're mostly only beat by the middle east whom I agree is a problem but a smaller one than the US.

Emissions per GPD don't work well since I wouldn't expect them to scale linearly. Only with advanced economies with similar per capita would I even begin to bother looking at it.

The US has 4.5% of the world's population and is supplying 18% of the CO2 emissions, and way you look at it it's utterly indefensible. If there's any country who's a major part of the problem it's the US and they really need to fix it.

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

You seem to enjoy that patronizing tone. I get the feeling that your AGW denialism is based more on desire to look smarter than everyone else than it is on an impartial examination of the data.

Sometimes the naysayers are right, but generally the scientists who study it for a living are right, and the "research" you've been doing is nothing more than cargo cult science. You claim the scientists should be able to offer some simple test or benchmark because that's how you declare science is done, and when they can't do that because that's not how the problem works you declare that's not science!

I'm sorry for being harsh but I find the arrogance that underlies your position to be maddening. You're not some brilliant impartial arbitrator of truth, you're just some guy who read some convincing articles or blog posts, decided they were gospel, and you think you're some freethinking defending Galileo against the church of big science.

Comment Re:Maybe if the US stopped using fraudulent data (Score 1) 401

Now we just need to convince the Arctic ice, Antarctic ice, and Greenland ice sheet to stop their damn melting. Please do tell them about the fraudulent data they're using.

The further north you go the more liberal you get, the US north is more liberal than the US south, Canada is far more liberal than the US north, and Northern Europe is notoriously liberal.

The Arctic ice and Greenland ice sheet are so liberal they're gay married and are probably melting just to collect welfare and refreeze later with the free health care. The damn commies are further left than Sean Penn's dry cleaned underwear.

Comment Re:We wouldn't have this problem... (Score 1) 401

I think the hippie perception might be a problem since our belief systems are driven by status.

You don't see many anti-vaxxers in the tech community because we associate it with people like Jenny McCarthy and duncy models are people we generally mock rather than emulate.

AGW denialism on the other hand plays into geek status. Claiming to be a denialist signals not only that you're really curious about science, but that you have such a natural aptitude that you can step back and point out these massive errors that the whole climate science community has been making.

You can also point out all the celebrities (including duncy model types) who are concerned about AGW and imply opponents are just being memorized by the pretty celebrities and fancy degrees and not looking at the actual science. It's even better if you can point out that the records don't quite line up with the models so you can make some claims about shifting goalposts and failed hypothesis.

Ironically this tendency is why denialists piss off people (including me) so much. To go into someone else's domain of expertise, poke around a bit, then declare that person and their entire field is completely wrong and the actual truth is X, it just strikes me as extraordinary combination of ignorance and arrogance.

I think that's the way to combat AGW denialism, they're trying to associate AGW with a duncy art stereotype and incompetent groupthinking scientists. We need to fight back and point out the root of denialism is the asshole no-nothing who claims to be the smartest guy in the room. (But don't worry, they're in good company with the bible-thumping fundies as well)

Comment Re:We're the best country in the world!!! Woo!! (Score 1) 357

The list is bogus.I would love to see what happens to a journalist that says politically incorrect stuff, like racist or anti-gay rants, in the top countries of this list. He would "only" be foired and sued if he was lucky, and arrested in the worse case scenario.

Freedom to say only what people consider nice and acceptable is no freedom at all. Any country that has "hate speech" laws has no grounds to criticize US lack of free speech.

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws (though I don't know who on that list besides Canada has them) but I think going after whistleblowers is worse. Hate speech laws target tone, silencing whistleblowers targets content.

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

I'm not sure what you would expect to see as evidence,

Yes, I know.

Seriously, for me the evidence would be the scientific consensus to agree we hit the tipping point. But you already disregard the scientific consensus, and if the science doesn't predict a great big sign at some point you're just giving yourself an excuse to always disagree.

As for the 90's predictions I can't remember what was in the media, much less the actual science,

Yes, I am not surprised. You like to talk more than you like to learn.

You like to insult more than you like to discuss. Here's a link about the first IPCC report from all the way back in 1990 (the 2nd report in '95 didn't change much).

Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other ... scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2 oC [to] about 0.1 oC per decade.

So where's this crazy prediction you're talking about?

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

Bah, I was thinking of another discussion and misremembered what Amiga3D was talking about..

No prob. You still should learn to read. :)

I read fine, we ended up talking about different things (I thought you meant predictions of major catastrophes now).

I'm still not sure you have a strong argument though. Think of it like we're driving a car at a brick wall, the longer we wait before hitting the brakes the harder we're going to hit. By the early 2000's we knew we'd get at least a minor collision, by now it's going to be significant, if we wait until the 2020's or longer it's just going to keep getting more severe. AGW isn't a binary thing, the more you get the worse it is, the fact we're going to deal with some unavoidable consequences doesn't mean we shouldn't stop what we can.

I mean, that's your hypothesis, right? But you haven't read to see if your hypothesis matches the data. The reality is, that there's no particular evidence that we have passed any sort of irreversible tipping point, especially not a kind of tipping point talked about by those like Hansen, where civilization itself is at risk.

I don't know if you followed AGW through the 90s, but the expectation was that the temperature would begin to rise almost exponentially, based on computer models. In 1998 it looked like it was happening, but the trend just didn't continue.

Another fun one, if you look for it, was the prediction that the north pole would be free from summer ice by 2015. Do a search, you'll find that prediction. We'll have to wait until next year to see if that prediction holds.

I'm not sure what you would expect to see as evidence, I'd fully expect us to be in store for severe unavoidable consequences well in excess of those consequences occurring. The lack of arctic sea might be one such piece of evidence as arctic ocean albedo is probably one of the feedbacks (and thawing of the permafrost a major one). The 2015-16 prediction is a valid one though I'm not sure how much it means on its own (it's really warm now, whether it remains warm enough over the next couple years to melt the summer ice doesn't say much about about the models of the future).

As for the 90's predictions I can't remember what was in the media, much less the actual science, but the 2-4 C by the end of the century figure has been around a while, that doesn't really jive with them projection a massive exponential increase starting in '98.

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

I was relying on the headlines/summaries you wrote in the post.

And this is why you are ignorant.

I've done plenty of reading and I don't recall prominent climate scientists making alarmist predictions about the current time frame.

No, we've just discussed that you don't actually read. You're one of those people who'd like to think that they've read, when actually you're just a talking ignoramus. Educate yourself or go away.

Bah, I was thinking of another discussion and misremembered what Amiga3D was talking about..

I'm still not sure you have a strong argument though. Think of it like we're driving a car at a brick wall, the longer we wait before hitting the brakes the harder we're going to hit. By the early 2000's we knew we'd get at least a minor collision, by now it's going to be significant, if we wait until the 2020's or longer it's just going to keep getting more severe. AGW isn't a binary thing, the more you get the worse it is, the fact we're going to deal with some unavoidable consequences doesn't mean we shouldn't stop what we can.

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

Here's what you said:

"those predictions are all completely consistent with each other and what I was saying."

Which is not true. It's so not true, I'm not sure if you did anything other than read the headlines, which would mean you're REALLY dumb.

I was relying on the headlines/summaries you wrote in the post. If your summaries don't show any indication of being on topic then why would I read the articles?

Seriously 'dude', that's just a sampling. If you actually care about the topic, go dig deeper, educate yourself. Don't rely on random people on the internet (me) to do your research for you. You'll find plenty of alarmist predictions that didn't come true.

And while we're at it, there's generally not scientific consensus that we've passed any kind of tipping point, or point of no return, so if you think we have, I'll mock you again for your ignorance.

I've done plenty of reading and I don't recall prominent climate scientists making alarmist predictions about the current time frame. You can always find the random person who said something dumb (or poorly expressed) but the scientific consensus has never talked about catastrophes in this time frame.

And I didn't say there was a consensus we were past a tipping point, I said we might be and some people thought we were (or that passing it was unavoidable). But that's completely irrelevant to the discussion about current weather catastrophes.

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

Seriously dude, the claim was climate scientists were making dire predictions of imminent catastrophes.

I countered that they forecast the catastrophes for decades in the future, and the imminent part was the tipping point.

You responded with a list of climate scientists warning about an imminent tipping point. I don't see how your list proves me wrong.

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 2) 410

Cite? I've generally heard 2020s or 2030s but that might be true and they might have been right. For all we know we're already past the tipping point and are going to get hit no matter what.

I made a list of such warnings and predictions once. You hear them every couple years or so.

But those predictions are all completely consistent with eachother and what I was saying.

In '89, we got about 10 years before some stuff becomes irreversible.

Come 2000+, now a bunch of stuff is irreversible.

They aren't saying we're going to see major effects in the next couple years, but we are probably past the point and we're going to see major effects in the future (though they'll probably be mitigated if we start reducing).

Comment Re:There are no comments (Score 1) 410

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

So what I see is a quote by a single scientist of unknown reputation, referring to an unspecified portion of Britain in the near future getting little enough snow so that they'll have a different cultural experience of winter. It was certainly an ill-advised quote and sounds extreme but he might have seen exactly the result he expected.

This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”

So? Growing seasons have changed, that's fairly well documented. And he doesn't give a timeframe for Wales having no permanent snow cover.

The others are more of the same, the only one that might make a prediction about the current timeframe is the first and even then it's not clear exactly what he's talking about.

I'm also unclear what this has to do with the claim

I remember climate experts shouting back in the last millennium that if we didn't do radical change by 2000 it'd be too late to make a difference. Why does that target date keep moving?

None of them give a date of 2000 or make any mention of a tipping point.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.

Working...