Global warming

[Squilliam]

What about a compromise? Like we only do something when 'real' countries are effected negatively and not just those funny 2nd and 3rd world countries?

Anyway im still disapointed in the level of compute resources dedicated to this issue. It seems if it was that pressing we would have 4-7 of the top 10 super computers in the world dedicated to climate processing. Where are these massive super computers? It just seems disapointing that countries are willing to throw 10B towards 'mitigation' aid when they have no idea whether that money will even be spent on such things and they aren't willing to spend 1B on advancing human understanding of an incredibly complex system.

Right now it feels like the whole climate change system is like two kids in the front seat of a car who have just determined that they might crash into something however the kid in the drivers seat is spending all his time talking to the passenger about whether or not his belt is on properly rather than attempting to figure out how to navigate/drive the car. So how can we as people take it seriously when all the politicians want to do is either get money from the west or try not to spend too much money. It seems the minds of the participants isn't even on the climate issue at all!

So how can I get serious about this when noone really seems to want to get serious? Theres no point in being the sole cheerleader in a stadium with 30,000 uninterested people trying to get everyone hyped up.

 

[rpg.314]

The most advanced species on Earth is unable to survive a couple degrees of warming?

Why does this surprise so much as to invite a response as dumb as this?

Maybe the rise in CO2 is due to human population exploding in this century, since we all breathe out CO2. What do you suggest then, population control?

And if I may invert the question somewhat, what is your opinion on mankind's ability to survive a couple of meters worth of sea level rise?

What is your opinion on third's world's ability to survive a couple of meters worth of sea level rise? What is your opinion on third's world's relevance to the world?

I don't believe there will be significant impacts to anything, and I won't until I see it or read about it.

The IPCC reports are all around you. The negative effects are all around you. But none are so blind as those who won't open their eyes.

I think by the time there could be significant impacts, we'll all switch to hydrogen cars and electricity generated by fusion, since those technologies will have matured.

Significant impacts are already occurring.

 

[corduroygt]

Why does this surprise so much as to invite a response as dumb as this?
And if I may invert the question somewhat, what is your opinion on mankind's ability to survive a couple of meters worth of sea level rise?
What is your opinion on third's world's ability to survive a couple of meters worth of sea level rise? What is your opinion on third's world's relevance to the world?

Humans and their ancestors in Africa have endured a lot of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. They'll do just fine. And if they need help, they should ask the Gates foundation and other billionaires. If I ever become a billionaire, I'll help out as well.

The IPCC reports are all around you. The negative effects are all around you. But none are so blind as those who won't open their eyes.
Significant impacts are already occurring.

Such as what? I don't hear or read about massive disasters that are any different from stuff that happened in the past.

 

[KimB]

Anyway im still disapointed in the level of compute resources dedicated to this issue. It seems if it was that pressing we would have 4-7 of the top 10 super computers in the world dedicated to climate processing. Where are these massive super computers? It just seems disapointing that countries are willing to throw 10B towards 'mitigation' aid when they have no idea whether that money will even be spent on such things and they aren't willing to spend 1B on advancing human understanding of an incredibly complex system.

It's not clear to me that throwing more computing power at the problem is the answer. We do have, after all, a number of global climate models that have been shown to work quite well. Heck, a number of them you can run on your home PC these days.

What I think we need more of is work in mitigation of climate change, not global climate simulations. Though more knowledge is obviously better, it seems that we know enough today that the focus should be on mitigation instead.

So how can I get serious about this when noone really seems to want to get serious? Theres no point in being the sole cheerleader in a stadium with 30,000 uninterested people trying to get everyone hyped up.

And if nobody speaks up then you just guarantee that you'll remain the sole cheerleader.

 

[Squilliam]

It's not clear to me that throwing more computing power at the problem is the answer. We do have, after all, a number of global climate models that have been shown to work quite well. Heck, a number of them you can run on your home PC these days.

What I think we need more of is work in mitigation of climate change, not global climate simulations. Though more knowledge is obviously better, it seems that we know enough today that the focus should be on mitigation instead.

The better the data, the more comprehensive the models and the more confidence you can approach X leader and say that climate change will cause issues A B and C and well as possibly D. Against the total quantity of aid pledged in this round of talks it is pretty much nothing in comparison. The bonus would of course be better 7 day weather forecasts which would be worth it.

And if nobody speaks up then you just guarantee that you'll remain the sole cheerleader.

But noone is really speaking up, even those who are speaking up aren't actually speaking up. Rather than talking about the production side of things all the time there are many different areas which could have already been addressed with todays technology on the consumption and disposal side of things.

1. Recycling? Where the hell did that go? You know reduce, reuse and recycle?
2. Biodegradeable packaging??? Hello?
3. Electronic waste responsibility on producers/retail?
4. Minimum lifespans on electronic goods to reduce waste?

Just because global climate change is in the spot light doesn't mean we shouldn't address things like how a bottle of coke will get used for about 5 minutes at most and then outlast the user by about a hundred years in terms of lifespan and that user may buy 100 bottles in a single year.

 

[The549]

The better the data, the more comprehensive the models and the more confidence you can approach X leader and say that climate change will cause issues A B and C and well as possibly D. Against the total quantity of aid pledged in this round of talks it is pretty much nothing in comparison. The bonus would of course be better 7 day weather forecasts which would be worth it.




But noone is really speaking up, even those who are speaking up aren't actually speaking up. Rather than talking about the production side of things all the time there are many different areas which could have already been addressed with todays technology on the consumption and disposal side of things.

1. Recycling? Where the hell did that go? You know reduce, reuse and recycle?
2. Biodegradeable packaging??? Hello?
3. Electronic waste responsibility on producers/retail?
4. Minimum lifespans on electronic goods to reduce waste?

Just because global climate change is in the spot light doesn't mean we shouldn't address things like how a bottle of coke will get used for about 5 minutes at most and then outlast the user by about a hundred years in terms of lifespan and that user may buy 100 bottles in a single year.

yup i see the same issues here. also, i used my home pc to calculate vectors and found out we have global warming mr president, can you fix it?

 

[rpg.314]

Humans and their ancestors in Africa have endured a lot of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years.

Clearly, you are unaware of the genetic bottlenecks in human evolution created during that time period.

 

[corduroygt]

Clearly, you are unaware of the genetic bottlenecks in human evolution created during that time period.

They survived and evolved, with much inferior technology to boot, which is a far cry from your sensationalist ecomentalist scaremongering earlier:

Earth can. Human beings can't. Not sure how you - or your behavioral descendants - would cope.
So you don't mind (or care) if human beings as a species are wiped out as long as they are replaced by some other species?

How about you do your thing and limit your CO2, while I do whatever I damn please? I am already limiting my CO2 due to financial incentives to save energy anyway, but you're not going to get me to pay more to subsidize unfeasible "alternative" energy sources like solar and wind. If I had the option to get my electricity from Nuclear, I'd have signed up for it already. The first place to save on CO2 emissions should be to shoot the anti-nuclear ecofreaks.

 

[Grall]

They survived and evolved, with much inferior technology to boot

Survived, but how many of them made it? Humanity is a damn inbred species, originating from an original population of mere thousands.

Anyway, humanity and civilization is sure to survive in one form or another for sure, but what about the rest of the biosphere? I guess you don't give a crap about that, huh?

You can consider that if we wreck the ecosystem, our modern system of agriculture will collapse along with it. Xxx's fabled mass starvation and riots will be a fact. Just wait and see what happens when 10, 20 million people a month starts pushing northwards from latitudes too hot for human habitation... It'll be the end of the world as we know it for sure.

How about you do your thing and limit your CO2, while I do whatever I damn please?

No, you're not allowed to be quite that selfish I'm afraid. When we take over, you'll be forced to ride a bike to and from wherever you go, styrofoam latte cups will be banned, and hugging at least one tree per day will be mandatory...

The first place to save on CO2 emissions should be to shoot the anti-nuclear ecofreaks.

Yea, well, just because you see no value in nature doesn't mean there isn't any.

 

[corduroygt]

Anyway, humanity and civilization is sure to survive in one form or another for sure, but what about the rest of the biosphere? I guess you don't give a crap about that, huh?

As long as it can support human life, I don't give a crap. No other living thing is more important than humans on Earth.

You can consider that if we wreck the ecosystem, our modern system of agriculture will collapse along with it. Xxx's fabled mass starvation and riots will be a fact. Just wait and see what happens when 10, 20 million people a month starts pushing northwards from latitudes too hot for human habitation... It'll be the end of the world as we know it for sure.

A couple degrees won't make it too hot for human habitation. As long as we have cheap abundant energy, we can irrigate and grow crops just fine, and run our A/C when it's too hot.

Yea, well, just because you see no value in nature doesn't mean there isn't any.

What are you talking about? Nuclear energy is GOOD for the environment. There's very little radioactive waste after reprocessing, and that can just be buried in concrete, and no carbon emissions. It's far better than oil/gas or coal, which is most of what we have now. There are no deaths attributable to nuclear plants in US or Europe, but the ecofreaks have their scaremongering "Chernobyl" campaign, and they'd be shot if I had my way.

 

[rpg.314]

A couple degrees won't make it too hot for human habitation.

If only biology could be compelled to bend to random statements of anonymous persons on the internet...

 

[gamervivek]

give up the sinful pleasures in the name of god,
give up the nasty CO2 releasing activities in the name of *insert any appropriate term*

Considered how Environmentalism is shockingly analogous to Medieval Catholicism.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle – Father, Son, Holy Ghost
Carbon credits – indulgences
Scientists (whose work is not understood by the masses) – Priests (whose Latin Bible can’t be read by the illiterate masses)
Think globally, act locally – your good deeds will get you into heaven.
Climate Change legislation – Cathedrals built for the glory of God
Climate Change legislation economic burden – Cathedral construction economic burden

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/double-bagger/#comment-169260

 

[Frank]

What's really scary is that this study got published in nature. Follow the comments of kate in that article you posted, and check out the comments at nature's link. The real howler, using data points made from 1899 till the time they started using satellites for observations, which were made by using a disk invented by a jesuit priest(just for the guys who find religious dogman a hurdle to science) and the eyesight of the user.

...

Yeah so doesn't that dent a big hole in anthropogenic global warming? Stupid plankton not converting CO2 and thus caused a positive feedback loop for their own demise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/walking-the-plank-ton/#comment-445088

Great post, gamervivek, very scientific!

That's also what I tend to do if I hear some outrageous claim, I should take notes and post them here.

 

[3dilettante]

give up the sinful pleasures in the name of god,
give up the nasty CO2 releasing activities in the name of *insert any appropriate term*



http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/double-bagger/#comment-169260

That selection is extremely weak, amounting to little more than "the author doesn't like this thing, and also doesn't like this other thing".
It is not consistent in what it lists in either side and frequently begs the question.
As such, it does a good job in showing there is little in common between the two.

At best, the one about carbon credits would be mildly applicable, if it were instead addressing carbon offsets.

 

[Frank]

Youth loves change, when they grow up they want to settle down and slowly start to hate change.

The same goes for settlements (societies): they come up with new and creative ways to conquer the frontier, so they can settle down and start restricting change by making laws. After that, you need cataclysmic events to shake and change the status quo.

Wars and natural disasters do the same, but they tend to kill many people, so you want to avoid them. Which leaves conquering new frontiers. And, essentially that's just many people moving and forming a new community somewhere fresh.

Space was the new frontier many people hoped on in the 60's and 70's, but that got nowhere.

So, the people who are settled might not like it one bit, but it would elevate human society quite a bit if millions of them had to move and form a new society.


And that's the whole AGW debate in a nutshell: it's about change. Change, that would very likely happened in just the same way if we didn't increase the amount of CO2. The Earth isn't static. And I'm pretty certain, that if you add up all the "natural" effects that force those changes, like the warming of the Earth since the small ice age, and things like volcanic eruptions and hurricanes, the extra changes caused by AWG would be lost in the margin.

The genius about AGW is naming all of that and telling us we're collectively responsible. People love being able to have such a big effect on something that seemed so indifferent to humanity before we told them. "We do influence the weather!"

 

[3dilettante]

In response I make a weak metaphor that is not entirely internally consistent nor consistent with a the details of the situation I describe, mix it with several assumptions, make a few bald-faced assertions, toss them in a bag, shake them up and then dump them out.

 

[gamervivek]

That selection is extremely weak, amounting to little more than "the author doesn't like this thing, and also doesn't like this other thing".
It is not consistent in what it lists in either side and frequently begs the question.
As such, it does a good job in showing there is little in common between the two.

At best, the one about carbon credits would be mildly applicable, if it were instead addressing carbon offsets.

the arguments one hears against the church and religion each day don't hold up to scrutiny as well.
http://www.irrationalatheist.com/

The analogies work pretty well imo, and ain't I entitled to my opinion?

 

[Frank]

In response I make a weak metaphor that is not entirely internally consistent nor consistent with a the details of the situation I describe, mix it with several assumptions, make a few bald-faced assertions, toss them in a bag, shake them up and then dump them out.

It's called injecting a fresh angle into the discussion. That often works pretty well.

Do you want a book that goes into all the details, with hundreds of links to back it all up? Sorry, if you want that, do it yourself.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle – Father, Son, Holy Ghost

yeah why not "ein Volk, ein Führer, ein Reich"

 

[3dilettante]

The parallels drawn are frequently weak, or subject to other fallacies that make them weak or too generic to be meaningful.

*Reduce, Reuse, Recycle – Father, Son, Holy Ghost
There are three things in those lists. Nothing more can be meaningfully drawn.
Similarly Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmatic must be like Climate Change or Medeival Catholicism.

*Carbon credits – indulgences
A credit system would be implemented with a limited number of credits, that may be initially bought but then must be traded since the sytem does not they can be freely created.
Indulgences are not tradable, and there is no cap in the amount of sin in the world.
Carbon offsets would be closer to an indulgence.

*Scientists (whose work is not understood by the masses) – Priests (whose Latin Bible can’t be read by the illiterate masses)
This does more to insult the masses than show a parallel.
The masses could understand Latin if it were permitted to teach them, and there is no proscription against learning scientific literature. Note that the medeival masses are excused in that they can't read, but the modern masses simply do not understand, so the situations are not directly comparable.

*Think globally, act locally – your good deeds will get you into heaven.
Inconsistent sides: One is a rule of thumb, the other a promise of personal reward.

*Climate Change legislation – Cathedrals built for the glory of God
Inconsistent sides: Climate change legislation is listed, but with no purpose. Cathedrals are listed with a purpose.
One is an abstract collection of policies or proposals. The other is a building.

*Climate Change legislation economic burden – Cathedral construction economic burden
Assumes these both have burdens, though this could be readily argued as being so.
Asserts that they are equivalent in scope.
Without the equvalence in scope, the parallel is too generic. Almost anything has a burden, and would fit in this parallel.