Climate Change

[CaptainHaplo]

The problem with "climate change" isn't just that its too political...

Its also to PROFITABLE. You have a lot of money that gets poured into a lot of studies with a vested interest in keeping said money flowing...
If you had definitive studies that said "climate change" was not real, how many climate scientists would be hard pressed to find funding for their work?

After all, when Environmental Research Letters refuses to publish a paper by 5 recognized experts (whose credentials they do not fault) because during review it was deemed to be "less than helpful" and "worse" because it would allow climate change skeptics to cite errors in the IPCC evaluations - what more needs to be said?

[Sinkmore]

Most of the CO2 increase over the last century has been absorbed by the oceans. This results in ocean acidification, which adversely impacts small shelly plankton, who are the base of the food chain. Continued ocean acidification will eventually result in desertification. That will be bad.

At some point, the oceans will become saturated with CO2, and then rise in atmospheric CO2 levels will accelerate, which is when climate change will begin for realz. And it will be way too late to stop, then. Also, it will be too late to benefit from owning property on the new beachfront, as the global economy we are familiar with will be impossible, as will the societies that depend on it. IE, most people will die, most civilizations will vanish, most species will go extinct, and natural systems will take hundreds, thousands, or perhaps millions of years to "correct" the "problem".

It's a simple, fundamental, physical fact that adding CO2 to "air" increases its thermal retention. You can prove this beyond any rational doubt with a test tube, 12¢ worth of gases, and a little sunlight. Any claim that "climate change" is false or a hoax must somehow dispute that simple fact, or they're ridiculous. None do, or conceivably could - so they are.

There a room for debate about how much how soon, but virtually all scientists agree that it's too much, too soon. An increasing number of scientists think it's too late already. They may be optimists.

What is it about climate change that makes uninformed laymen think they know more than the scientists? There's no comparable skepticism about the spherical Earth theory, or about the speed of light, or the theory that lightning is electricity. Why accept those theories without blinking, yet refuse to accept climate science? Face it, probably you don't understand ANY science well enough to have an important "opinion" worth sharing - except when it comes to climate science!

It's absurd to deny climate science; but let's pretend that we cannot know that the facts we have mean what they mean. Let's pretend it's a 50/50 chance. No; let's pretend that there's a 2% chance that 98% of scientists are better than PR professionals at doing science. (Lol). If there is a 2% chance theyre right, then we must immediately freak out, rearrange our economies and lifestyles, pay whatever it takes, and stop emitting greenhouse gases. A 2% chance of the world coming to an end is an unacceptable risk. Only, it's closer to a 100% chance. I'm yet to see a single valid theory to the contrary.

Climate change was bad enough already, but now there's reason to convert from fear to panic. Scientists have determined that the killing blow won't be sea level rise, or bad weather - it will be the release into the atmosphere of megatons of sulfur compounds, due to proliferation of anaerobic bacteria, due in turn to reduced oceanic oxygen carrying capacity, which will render the air literally poisonous for centuries.

Have a laugh about all that, and write it all off to Al Gore's insidious plot to... well, whatever the purpose, it must be insidious, or else the coal industry wouldn't have to spend so much money to protect us from the best calculations of our wisest scientists. 'Cause the coal industry cares first and foremost about making sure no one falls for hoaxes.

LOTS of societies - in fact, most by far -have collapsed, over the eons, and been forgotten. Probably most of them never saw it coming, and ridiculed (or beheaded) their members who understood the warning signs. Most extinct societies brought on their destruction in part through action and inaction, and/or failed to adapt to circumstances beyond their control. Check out Easter Island, and wonder why they cut down all the trees, on which their society absolutely depended. We're they just dumb? Dumber than us? Or about the same?

This time, though, the "deforestation" won't be local. It'll be global; and our modern, interdependent, highly technological, ultra-specialized societies are if anything more vulnerable to prolonged disruptions than "primitive" societies.

It's really, really, really bad, and no one, not even the radical environmentalist tree huggers, are taking it nearly seriously enough.

But hey, laugh it up. Dismiss it, cuz it's complex and learning about it, not to mention addressing it, sounds like a lot of bother. That's the spirit!

[Wolferz]

Has the answers.
We might even get the idea that he's a climate expert.

If our current, so called, global civilization is about to meet it's doom from climate catastrophe, what's wrong with that? Have you taken a close look at what's going on out there these days? It's overdue by my estimate. The human species needs to be whittled down considerably and taught a lesson in humility so that even the greedy have no choice but to take notice and start living in concert with nature. Instead of the never ending rape and exploitation currently being forced on the planet by those who only see the color green of money as what's important.
They will not go cold turkey until they shiver, starve or get wet.

I say; "let it happen Cap'n."

[Sinkmore]

One more thing, about denialism:

There's a meme, that climate scientists are in it for the money; that they (consciously or unconsciously) skew their results in order to get at the grant money.

While such things do happen, in science and elsewhere, this argument is laughable. For one thing, most scientists who have "signed on" to climate change have received zero dollars to do climate research; they just recognize the facts. For another thing, scientists don't succeed in their careers by agreeing with other scientists; if you want to get ahead, you have to show that the precailing views are wrong, and prove it. Third, scientists mainly want to do science, to discover truths; they are as a class generally apolitical (they barely know what country they live in!) and are professionally very conservative about how they make their claims.

Consider this: Any legit climate scientist with any legit alternative theory, if proved right, will be a giant, internationally famous hero. Major institutions will be name after them. Grant money will pour in like Niagara. This is what the scientists are avoiding, in the furtherance of a political hoax?

If the facts existed, no doubt there'd be fistfights to be the first to publish.

But lastly, and this, standing alone, decimates the meme; any scientist who can effectively dispute climate change will get ten times the publicity, and ten times the opportunities for grant funding, with much less competition, than their leftist colleagues, from the exceedingly generous coal industry, who are desperate for (but can't find or even buy) contrary scientific views. The truth, as usual, is the exact opposite of the political spin.

Just think about that last point.

[Sinkmore]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Has the answers.
We might even get the idea that he's a climate expert.

If our current, so called, global civilization is about to meet it's doom from climate catastrophe, what's wrong with that? Have you taken a close look at what's going on out there these days? It's overdue by my estimate. The human species needs to be whittled down considerably and taught a lesson in humility so that even the greedy have no choice but to take notice and start living in concert with nature. Instead of the never ending rape and exploitation currently being forced on the planet by those who only see the color green of money as what's important.
They will not go cold turkey until they shiver, starve or get wet.

I say; "let it happen Cap'n."

I don't claim to be an expert. I do claim to know more about it, and science generally, than most laymen. I believe I could prove that if a test can be contrived.

I do agree about how awful society is; but I don't think it's worse than it used to be in some golden age. In fact, by virtually every metric, I think most societies are more civilized, more peaceful, more egalitarian, etc., than ever before in recorded history. Rape, for example, is now a crime against a woma, whereas it used to be treated like a violation of a man's property - if even that. Few cultures now tolerate slavery, for example, whereas it used to be an essential part of perhaps most past societies. I could go on and on about how we are now -more- moral, and -more- civilized, than during any previous era. So, Noah, hold off on that ark!

But, I want to draw attention to one more thing you said - let it happen. I recognize that reaction, psychologically, from my own mind, from other topics, for instance how I view my smoking habit. It's a means of processing contradictions, rationalizing irrational urges, coping with cognitive dissonances. It's a very common view, regarding climate change, and psychologically understandable. But deeply irresponsible, and if humanity takes that sort of attitude, we aren't long for this world.

[Wolferz]

Please turn around and aim your message at the sinners...

Of course the coal industry is going to do whatever they can to save their livelihoods. Along with the coal fired power generators et al.
Cheap fuel = more money but creates a great deal of pollution.

If the government stooges hadn't been scared away from breeder reactor nuclear power by another set of chicken littles who did the radioactive catastrophe dance, we wouldn't need coal fired power or gas fired power or even oil fired power. Breeder reactors don't even create nuclear waste. They create and recreate their own fuel. No waste products to be buried in a salt mine for ten thousand + years and we would all get cheap electricity.
But money talks and BS walks, usually in the form of lobbies with fists full of dollars for bribery.
Who can stop that train when the brakes have been sabotaged?

That's why I think the impending global warming catastrophe should be allowed to happen. Starving sheeple are excellent motivators for change.

[Sinkmore]

I wasn't aiming my message at you, or anyone in particular. I did address the things you said, but I don't know anything about you except presumably that you like submarine games. So you can't be all bad. Lol. Plus, you seemed to side against environmentally destructive greedheads, so probably we'd agree about the nature of the problem. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you. I can see why you might... But, not intended.

I still disagree about letting It happen. If It happens, there won't be many (if any?) people left to learn from it. And there won't be another industrial society any time soon afterward to do it differently.

(Tangent: I've never seen it said before, but it seems to me it will be very hard for the "next" civilization to emerge from the next Iron Age, as the most readily available mineral outcroppings have mostly been depleted, the easy oil has mostly been pumped, etc.. So, this industrial civilization is probably the first and last chance chance humanity is gonna get.)

I agree about nuclear power, btw. Even conventional nuke plants are better than coal. I read somewhere that more radioactive particulates are released every year from burning coal than have been released in the history of nuclear power. Breeders are better, but IMHO thorium reactors are the way to go. At least in 2014, fusion power is still pretty much kooky-talk; and we don't need it anyway.

I disagree about who stopped nuclear power, though. Righties want to blame the hippies, but srsly, when have the long haired tree huggers ever gotten their way? You think Greenpeace has more clout on Capitol Hill than GE has? No, it failed 'cause it was too expensive relative to coal. That, and, in the U.S. at least, because the Feds stopped subsidizing & insuring the plants (once the nuke energy industry wasn't necessary to the nuke weapons industry, which was pretty much why the DOE was created.)

It isn't a question of where to get energy. There are numerous alternatives. It's only a question of how to stop using the currently installed fossil fuel system. Politics and economics are much more complicated than mere nuclear physics.

[Flamebatter90]

I think this pie chart by James Powell sums it up nicely.

 

Probably the most disappointing thing about the climate change debate for me is the fact that at other times, we praise scientists for their hard work and amazing achievements. But when it comes to this inconvenient realization (climate change), the scientists are suddenly the bad guys and are "in on it". That's just arrogant and bordering on conspiracy theory level of stupid.

[Skybird]

The research on Global Warming is one of the most corrupted scientific branches existing today, I think. And it gets corrupted from both sides of the frontline - from sceptics and believers alike. The scientists trying to conduct a balanced, objective approach, usually take Flak from both sides.

To support Global warming, is a big money-redistribution machine today, immense streams of money are being redirected - or are intended to be redirected - from the industrialised North to the less industrialised South of the World.

In the North, especially here in Germany, it also is the excuse for a tremendous ideological reeducation program. Also, many subsidies gets pumped (in the name of "fighting" Global Warming) into business branches or enterprises that without these subsidies would be uncompettive and would seize to exist. This social- and job-related aspect as well as the profit-interests of daring investors have taken over the motivation of wanting to become a "greener society". Not for the crowd, but for the decision makers.

The crowd does not really care for checking whether what it assumes to help environmentr and climate, indeed makes a psoitive difference for anyone. What thje crowd - ove rhere at least -wants is just to have the nice feeling resulting from believing that what they do in lifestyle chnages means a difference, globally. Checking that assumption for its truth, is not very popular over here. Ideology is all. Green ideology is like a new religion. You must not check and know the facts: you just need to believe something, an d then turn hysteric in your belief. Just two weeks ago, another big science report has slammed the german "Energiewende" and the European climate polciy in totality, showing that it not only causes no globally felt differences for the better, but that in many fields it even makes things worse. The Greenies did not react, or angrily balked .

I think the climate, by general trend and seen globally, is becoming warmer. I think human influenc eplays a role that makes a diference, but whether it is that big as the beolievers want to make me believe, I have my doubts. I think it is not baout wanting to infouence and stop climate chznage, as they say, becasue I think that simply is impossible by now, with or without human effects in global warming. What it is about is when and how we start to adapt, and prepare for the many paradoxical effects created by climate warming as well. Adaptation is key. Evolution is about survival of those who adapt, evolutionary fitness does not necessarily mean physical strength, but the ability to flexibly adapt.

I have my doubts that we will adapt. We are too many people on this globe, too many live in places where they are extremely exposed to climate disasters, and in circumstances where they have not the material means to adapt. I think we stand at the beginning of a very grim chapter of human history.

Sorting waste in Germany and switching off German nuclear powerplants, and all the hysteria about carbon footprints and energy-saving light sources, will make no difference. As long as man does not understand that we are multiple times too many people on this globe and that the corrupted industry model we now run leads too lethally excessive abuse of our living habitat, all the talking about living in harmony with nature is just mentally deranged romanticism. Environmental debates these days to me are not more like the usual cheating babbling of just any politician wanting to bget elected again: it is about control and power but claims to be about moral and ethical principles. An infantile public helps to keep the deception alive - I have enough of this theatre.

[Catfish]

Why not ask a geologist?

Look at the elements and substrates that can be found in certain strata, and look what happened to life in this or towards the end of this time.
Hint: Perm.

[Sinkmore]

I think Skybird is right to be cynical, about social forces and about the prospects for an overpopulated world.

"Believers" of all kinds are ugly and dangerous. But the herd is going to follow SOMEONE, and they'll embarrass you no matter which way they turn.

Still, this is our situation. We are faced with a much greater challenge, and a more perilous threat, than for instance anyone contemplated in the world wars, or even the Cold War (which only held a CHANCE of destroying the world).

So I'm cynical too - deeply! - But I remain a cynical optimist. We can STILL do the best we can do... That would be enough to save our species, and enough of the world to live in. If our economies are managed intelligently, we can live on Earth another 50+ (Maybe even 500) million years (before the sun gets too hot).

The fools will be foolish no matter what they've been led to believe. The jackals will make obscene profits whether we adapt our societies or not. The vain hypocrite do-gooders will flaunt their righteousness regardless. So, have a drink, shake your head, but be GLAD when the town council wants to spend a million euros to investigate fart recycling; it's better for the future than "drill baby drill", which I suggest is the (equally embarrassing but less sustainable) alternative.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The research on Global Warming is one of the most corrupted scientific branches existing today, I think. And it gets corrupted from both sides of the frontline - from sceptics and believers alike. The scientists trying to conduct a balanced, objective approach, usually take Flak from both sides.

To support Global warming, is a big money-redistribution machine today, immense streams of money are being redirected - or are intended to be redirected - from the industrialised North to the less industrialised South of the World.

In the North, especially here in Germany, it also is the excuse for a tremendous ideological reeducation program. Also, many subsidies gets pumped (in the name of "fighting" Global Warming) into business branches or enterprises that without these subsidies would be uncompettive and would seize to exist. This social- and job-related aspect as well as the profit-interests of daring investors have taken over the motivation of wanting to become a "greener society". Not for the crowd, but for the decision makers.

The crowd does not really care for checking whether what it assumes to help environmentr and climate, indeed makes a psoitive difference for anyone. What thje crowd - ove rhere at least -wants is just to have the nice feeling resulting from believing that what they do in lifestyle chnages means a difference, globally. Checking that assumption for its truth, is not very popular over here. Ideology is all. Green ideology is like a new religion. You must not check and know the facts: you just need to believe something, an d then turn hysteric in your belief. Just two weeks ago, another big science report has slammed the german "Energiewende" and the European climate polciy in totality, showing that it not only causes no globally felt differences for the better, but that in many fields it even makes things worse. The Greenies did not react, or angrily balked .

I think the climate, by general trend and seen globally, is becoming warmer. I think human influenc eplays a role that makes a diference, but whether it is that big as the beolievers want to make me believe, I have my doubts. I think it is not baout wanting to infouence and stop climate chznage, as they say, becasue I think that simply is impossible by now, with or without human effects in global warming. What it is about is when and how we start to adapt, and prepare for the many paradoxical effects created by climate warming as well. Adaptation is key. Evolution is about survival of those who adapt, evolutionary fitness does not necessarily mean physical strength, but the ability to flexibly adapt.

I have my doubts that we will adapt. We are too many people on this globe, too many live in places where they are extremely exposed to climate disasters, and in circumstances where they have not the material means to adapt. I think we stand at the beginning of a very grim chapter of human history.

Sorting waste in Germany and switching off German nuclear powerplants, and all the hysteria about carbon footprints and energy-saving light sources, will make no difference. As long as man does not understand that we are multiple times too many people on this globe and that the corrupted industry model we now run leads too lethally excessive abuse of our living habitat, all the talking about living in harmony with nature is just mentally deranged romanticism. Environmental debates these days to me are not more like the usual cheating babbling of just any politician wanting to bget elected again: it is about control and power but claims to be about moral and ethical principles. An infantile public helps to keep the deception alive - I have enough of this theatre.

[Skybird]

I were not cynical. Nor were I ironic, sarcastic or funny. If I were any of that, I wouldn't have enough of this theatre, but still go there.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-971033.html

Not the man's case is the news in this story, but the description of how entrenched and dogmatized the "scientific" debate has become.

Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.
(...)
One Austrian professor has gone so far as calling for the death penalty for climate skeptics.

Always the Austrians . First Adolf Hitler, then Conchita Wurst, now this professor. - Now, this was a joke.

[Sinkmore]

Yes Skybird, that sort of compulsory indoctrination is terrible. It's also a permanent feature of human society. Now, would you rather have compulsory sustainability, or compulsory environmental destruction? In the social sense, those are (exaggerated versions of) the choices.

I've never been a big fan of my society - it breeds narrow minded, greedy ignorami, mostly. I don't know of any group or movement or philosophy that I could ever belong to or identify with. I'm not waiting for society to get "better". I just want it to avoid self destruction, and destroying all the other cool life on Earth.

If we solve the MANY environmental crises, (Global warming is just one of them. Habitat destruction is nearly as dangerous. There are others...) then we'll have eternity to work on equality, social justice, and all that. If we don't, then it won't matter for long whether women can drive cars in Yemen, or one country massacres another, or who rules the world, or who wins European Idol.

True about the Austrians, though.
Lol, joke.

[Admiral Halsey]

My thoughts on global warming are this. The Earth's climate is constantly changing and I think we only cause a minimal amount of actual change.