Author Topic: The Official Climate Change Thread  (Read 31156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #105 on: August 16, 2011, 12:44:39 PM »
36,509 people voted for Ron Paul in 2008.  Therefore, the majority of people could not have voted for Obama.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #106 on: August 16, 2011, 12:46:37 PM »
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #107 on: August 16, 2011, 12:48:47 PM »
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?

Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline MasterShakezula

  • Posts: 3733
  • Owes H $10
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #108 on: August 16, 2011, 12:50:10 PM »
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?

Good thinking, but you're making too much sense.  In this world, people with power rely primarily on potential profit margins and probability of the outcome leading to funds for the next election campaign.  Unless Washington is seriously reformed, environmental reform will sadly remain on the outskirts until it becomes extremely lucrative for them and their Wall Street pimps.  

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #109 on: August 16, 2011, 12:53:07 PM »
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?

Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.

The fact that the non-renewable energy sources wont last forever isn't a good enough reason? It HAS to be global warming?

Offline MasterShakezula

  • Posts: 3733
  • Owes H $10
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #110 on: August 16, 2011, 12:56:30 PM »
Big oil has a lot of money.  The gov likes money, particularily Sens and Reps who can get big money from lobbyists from the oil barons if they make things a lot easier for the oil to be the dominant fuel.  They think in the sort term, because they are hedonistic and honestly couldn't give an F about the long term.   They're living well and will die soon, anyways. 

We really ought to get off oil, though.  Renewable energy as the energy standard is a crucial goal to reach, but it'll be difficult to overcome the big oil and their fat wallets.   :(

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #111 on: August 16, 2011, 12:56:48 PM »
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?

Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.

The fact that the non-renewable energy sources wont last forever isn't a good enough reason? It HAS to be global warming?

Oil might take 200 or 300 years to run out, depending on future use and the discovery of other reserves.

Greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by 80-90% within the next thirty years or so to prevent global temperature from increasing by over 2 degrees C.

There's a massive gulf between the two scenarios in terms of how quickly non-renewables need to be replaced.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #112 on: August 16, 2011, 01:09:36 PM »
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?

Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.

The fact that the non-renewable energy sources wont last forever isn't a good enough reason? It HAS to be global warming?

Don't bother, he's ignored my argument for this numerous times. It apparently has to be global warming, otherwise, it makes no sense.

m13, do you know about ocean acidification and the corresponding results of having 450ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere?

Offline MasterShakezula

  • Posts: 3733
  • Owes H $10
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #113 on: August 16, 2011, 01:12:10 PM »
I've definitely heard of ocean acidification; too much acidity (or basicness, for that matter) would make the oceans' pH uninhabitable for it's life, is that right?

And I'm guessing that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be a high enough concentration to raise the temperature to some rather high point, on average, considering that it's a greenhouse gas.  Am I on the right page?

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #114 on: August 16, 2011, 01:33:06 PM »

Oil might take 200 or 300 years to run out, depending on future use and the discovery of other reserves.

Greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by 80-90% within the next thirty years or so to prevent global temperature from increasing by over 2 degrees C.

There's a massive gulf between the two scenarios in terms of how quickly non-renewables need to be replaced.

I guess my point is that "why" shouldn't really be the issue debated. There seems to be a common knowledge that our current resources aren't going to last forever and that our current state could be improved with new technologies. "When" is also not the issue to be debated, as the faster anything is addressed the better to reduce our dependence on foreign markets and limit pollutants. The real issue at hand to debate would be the "how".

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #115 on: August 16, 2011, 01:38:26 PM »
I've definitely heard of ocean acidification; too much acidity (or basicness, for that matter) would make the oceans' pH uninhabitable for it's life, is that right?


Pretty much; it destroys a huge section of the bottom of the food chain, causing massive collapse (whatever left of it anyways...)


Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #116 on: August 16, 2011, 07:12:04 PM »
And I'm guessing that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be a high enough concentration to raise the temperature to some rather high point, on average, considering that it's a greenhouse gas.  Am I on the right page?

Master Shak, I'm glad you've asked.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html

It's the potentially anthropogenic Armageddon that keeps me up at night.

Fake edit: And I realize it's not the best source, but it's the best I can do at short notice.

Fake edit 2: But hey, in a rather relieving turn of events, the labs at Mauna in Hawaii have released atmospheric data weekly at co2now.org, and if their data is correct, the CO2 concentration has happily gone down almost four points since around mid-May this year.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #117 on: August 16, 2011, 07:24:03 PM »
It's an annual fluctuation.  Plants uptake more CO2 in the summer as they're growing.  See:

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #118 on: August 16, 2011, 08:08:04 PM »
Well that's disheartening.  Or we should just plant more trees.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #119 on: August 17, 2011, 10:10:17 AM »
Well that's disheartening.  Or we should just plant more trees.

It would be a start.  Deforestation is one of the biggest sources (second-biggest, I think, obviously after the burning of fossil fuels) of human CO2 emissions, because burning/cutting them down produces CO2, processing the wood into lumber or other products produces CO2, and the trees not being alive anymore prevents them from converting CO2.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #120 on: August 17, 2011, 11:55:25 AM »
Dammit, I hated hippies as a kid and now I'm becoming one! :lol
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
    • My blog
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #121 on: August 17, 2011, 12:14:32 PM »
A little good news to turn your frowns upside down.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/08/15/climate-models-not-so-good-for-crop-prediction/#more-503

The climate models are fairly lousy at predicting changes in crop production, and that means more food for everybody. By the way, I didn't say everything is lovely everywhere and at all times. The study only covers agricultural regions in the U.S. But it's still good news, seeing as how we produce a lot of food.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #122 on: August 17, 2011, 12:39:14 PM »
This issue with crop production is more to do with places like India, China, and sub-Saharan Africa.  The United States will not lack for food; I'd expect the potential crop yields of Canada and Russia will increase massively.  The writers of the study quoted are absolutely correct to warn that the results in the United States, where farmers are much wealthier, and better able to adapt, will not necessarily mimic the results increased temperatures will have on Zimbabwe.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #123 on: August 17, 2011, 02:20:41 PM »
Yeah, I've never doubted the US's personal fortunes in this; my concern is with the bigger picture.  I am not worried at all about global warming, but I am completely terrified of runaway global warming.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #124 on: September 02, 2011, 03:46:21 PM »
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing, has stepped down over publishing the article discussed here by Spencer and Braswell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4618
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #125 on: September 02, 2011, 11:40:04 PM »
Read that. Seems like an overblown reaction to be honest.

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
    • My blog
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #126 on: September 03, 2011, 03:46:04 AM »
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing, has stepped down over publishing the article discussed here by Spencer and Braswell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
What a bunch of bullshit. Remote Sensing isn't going to retract the paper - "Remote Sensing’s editor Wagner tells us the journal is not considering retracting the study. 'No, neither the publisher nor I have so far considered this [retraction]. On the one hand, as I wrote in the editorial, formally everything was correct with the review. On the other hand we believe that it is much better to treat this issue in an open and scientific manner. Therefore the publisher is already working on inviting the science community to respond to this paper.'"

In other words, the process will continue as it always has. The study was published and now the journal will probably publish a rebuttal of some kind, which Spencer said needs to happen if there is a flaw in his study. What's with all the drama?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #127 on: September 03, 2011, 03:03:09 PM »
I don't get why'd he resign, but the fact that the man feels like he "failed" the scientific community really says something about the paper published, or at east the implications trying to be drawn from the study.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #128 on: September 04, 2011, 01:08:01 AM »
Maybe if he meant he failed science because of his shameful connections to a political scene and not a scientific one.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #129 on: September 12, 2011, 11:36:37 AM »
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline snapple

  • Posts: 5132
  • The last hurrah? Nah, I'd do it again!
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #130 on: September 13, 2011, 05:29:55 PM »
Okay - I don't buy into global warming. I just don't think the evidence is there to convince me. Not saying it's a hoax or anything, I'm just saying that I don't buy into it.
MLB 2014 Thread
DTF Cookbook

Driftin' away like a feather in air. Letting my words take me away from the hurt and despair

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #131 on: September 13, 2011, 06:02:00 PM »
Why not?  The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.

And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline snapple

  • Posts: 5132
  • The last hurrah? Nah, I'd do it again!
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #132 on: September 13, 2011, 06:07:56 PM »
Why not?  The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.

And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.

Nothing compelling. Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot. It happens in cycles.
MLB 2014 Thread
DTF Cookbook

Driftin' away like a feather in air. Letting my words take me away from the hurt and despair

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #133 on: September 13, 2011, 06:12:36 PM »
Sure it does, but those cycles tend to occur over the course of centuries or more; this one seems to be happening on the order of decades, years even.

I almost wrote a whole big edit describing the ways this time was different from previous warmings and coolings, but I'll just sum up by saying that people who are concerned are so because the warming is not only occurring at a faster rate but to a greater degree than previously. The most recent warming periods before this saw 0.1-0.2 degree C change, and the most recent cooling around 1-2 degrees. Over half the time we've already covered that ground, and we're expected to take up at least a 2 degree change since 1850 by the year 2050, and some predict by 2100 we'll have hit a 7 degree change.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 06:20:05 PM by Super Dude »
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #134 on: September 13, 2011, 06:13:20 PM »
Why not?  The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.

And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.

Nothing compelling. Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot. It happens in cycles.

But the greenhouse effect is a proven phenomenon.  Considering there has been no other major changes to our atmosphere over the past 100-150 years, doesn't the increase in greenhouse gases make for compelling evidence that the warming the Earth has experienced is anthropogenic in cause?
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #135 on: September 13, 2011, 06:57:30 PM »
Why not?  The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.

And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.

Nothing compelling. Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot. It happens in cycles.

Death is natural, does that make all deaths natural?

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #136 on: September 13, 2011, 09:56:23 PM »
Even if I was a climate skeptic I'd still probably be supportive of alternative energies.  I mean if there is low risk of catastrophe (and the risk is definitely greater), I'd think the high cost would be enough to justify it.  Why risk it, even if you believe it's unlikely?  In other words, is it worth the cost of being wrong?
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26497
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #137 on: September 14, 2011, 01:04:03 AM »
I think the defiance of GW is a picture-perfect example of political opportunism. GW has long gone beyond question in moderate circles, it's really mostly used by right-wing politicians to create the feeling of being besieged and thus rally their constituents behind them. Same thing with Evolution.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #138 on: September 14, 2011, 06:01:27 AM »
Oh I didn't mean public officials, I meant the constituents themselves.  Even as a Republican voter (not a Tea Partier, maybe) my philosophy would still be to err on the side of caution.  Because what if you are wrong, and you have doomed the nation because you thought it was too unlikely to worry about anyway?
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20321
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #139 on: September 14, 2011, 06:05:31 AM »
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?

Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.

How about not having our balls in the hands of those folks in the middle east?