Setting Fire To Sleeping Strawmen (now with extra Toniiiiiiiiiight, you're right, you're right, you're right)
-
What about the good stuff? Honestly, sometimes I worry about "what if those guys are right?" But as mentioned above, that's just emotion, really. It's an example of humanity's love for end of the world doomsday stuff. Once I go back and look at their case, it all falls apart.
Exactly. Humans have learned to adapt to extreme conditions in the past. To believe that we couldn't adapt to "extreme" temperature changes is, well, extremely stupid.So doing things that are going to make us worse off (ethanol, cap and trade, solar boondoggles) just makes me angry and sad.
-
-
To believe that we couldn't adapt to "extreme" temperature changes is, well, extremely stupid.
And evidence says that we're well within historic climate bounds that human civilization has endured.
-
Pop quiz: Who will get the most from the "solutions" to "climate chaos"?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByFruS6IgAAfjdn.jpg
-
-
@impinball is totally getting a CLOSED - INVALID badge soon...
-
@impinball is totally getting a CLOSED - INVALID badge soon...
doubt it. we've not even handed out a single badge in that series yet.
we may be wildly off topic but i've gotta say i'm absolutely sucking down the popcorn watching this topic!
-
In fact, according to Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise (which has a chapter on GW predictions), recent temperature changes have actually correlated very well recently (small numbers of decades; I don't have a copy, only got it from the library) with CO2 levels, to the point where you would actually have a reasonably good prediction if you went solely off of CO2 concentrations if I remember right.
Some of the dissenters have pointed out that the CO2 variations actually follow temperature changes and provide a very reasonably explanation: colder water can hold more CO2.
-
I sometimes don't see the quote reply box on Android, mainly when only selecting from one line, but it's intermittent and Jeff insists that it doesn't happen because he has a screenshot of a Nexus 7 where the box appears.
Same thing occasionally happens for me in Firefox (actually Iceweasel on Debian). It's discoursistent.
-
Fine, fair enough. Care to give any links, because I can't exactly evaluate what I have no idea you're talking about. (A couple quick Googles for "nebraska warm winter" or similar terms didn't return anything looking particularly relevant.)
No, because like all bad science articles the links eventually go dead with no apology or retraction whatsoever, causing many who originally read it to never realize it was made up.
-
We are going to run out of fossil fuels (well at least dwindle the supply to the point where they are expensive).
That has nothing to do with the conversation we are having. I'm going to ignore it now.
So, my suggestions don't really indicate my beliefs on climate change - just on energy policy.
Considering the context of your suggestions, your suggestions did indicate that you believe that we have influenced climate change. If you didn't mean to imply that, then you should have left the debate about energy policy in another thread.
-
the links eventually go dead with no apology or retraction whatsoever
Maybe the Wayback Machine would have something?
-
Here's something that will really bake people's noodles: Some have suggested that temperature changes have occurred before increase in CO2 - that is, that temp change causes CO2 change, and not vice versa. Take a look at the Rutan link I posted above if you don't believe me.
-
Hanzo baked their noodles already:
Some of the dissenters have pointed out that the CO2 variations actually follow temperature changes and provide a very reasonably explanation: colder water can hold more CO2.
-
Hanzo baked their noodles already:
And before that...
There is also geological evidence of correlation, but given that the CO2 changes lagged the temperature changes.
-
Whoops. Sorry, guys.
-
It's OK, repetition is critical to learning.
-
Whoops. Sorry, guys.
Don't be. Your link was at post 51. @boomzilla made his comment at post 446, and @antiquarian at post 458. You actually Hanzoed them. Your most recent post was just a rehash. ;)
-
"My wife is an atmospheric chemist. That fact has made reading this thread very amusing."
Well, then, let's hear what she finds amusing about it.
Nothing, she has no idea that this thread exists.
-
-
-
And evidence says that we're well within historic climate bounds that human civilization has endured.
Although not this civilisation.
I'd quite like to keep the whole "computers and Internet" thing, rather than reverting to the "0.1% of current population scraping a meagre subsistence lifestyle".If nothing else, I'm not entirely certain I'm rich enough to be in the 0.1%.
-
-
I'd quite like to keep the whole "computers and Internet" thing, rather than reverting to the "0.1% of current population scraping a meagre subsistence lifestyle".
If nothing else, I'm not entirely certain I'm rich enough to be in the 0.1%.
You think the richest people are the ones who'll survive as subsistence farmers after the (zombie or otherwise) apocalypse?
-
Although not this civilisation.
Exactly. I think we're just barely catching up to the Romans!
I'd quite like to keep the whole "computers and Internet" thing, rather than reverting to the "0.1% of current population scraping a meagre subsistence lifestyle".
Oh, man, totally. This is a big reason why I rail against people trying to drag us down with their hysteria.
-
Not to mention the allergy that liberty-minded people have towards causes backed by collectivists. If politicians, banksters and Mickey Maoists are in favor of something, then it's smart to be against it.
-
Not to mention the allergy that liberty-minded people have towards causes backed by collectivists.
Yeah, if I agreed with them on the science behind the problem, I would probably back other solutions than the sort they propose. I think the mingling of the problem with the solution is why people tend to think of this as a political issue...because it is and it isn't, depending on what you're talking about.
-
Yeah, if I agreed with them on the science behind the problem, I would probably back other solutions than the sort they propose. I think the mingling of the problem with the solution is why people tend to think of this as a political issue...because it is and it isn't, depending on what you're talking about.
The big problem isn't that it is impossible to adapt, it's that it is going to be horribly expensive to do so, and that there are all too many people about who will totally run $THING into the ground for a few bucks more. (The big worries are what happens if there's a major shift in rainfall patterns or a significant rise in sea levels. Both would probably trigger wars, and who knows what would happen then.)
Using more renewables and improving efficiency are proposed because they're the cheap options with least bad impact on peoples' lifestyles.
-
The big problem isn't that it is impossible to adapt, it's that it is going to be horribly expensive to do so, and that there are all too many people about who will totally run $THING into the ground for a few bucks more.
I disagree. If you accept the alarmism, adaptation is much cheaper than any other alternative.
Using more renewables and improving efficiency are proposed because they're the cheap options with least bad impact on peoples' lifestyles.
Except that the levels of "more" that would be required would have big bad impacts on people's lifestyles. Assuming we're actually talking about doing more than assuaging some irrational guilt.
-
The problem is along with all the record heat in Australia and California, people were also claiming record heat in Nebraska, which was nowhere near true. If anything, it was more of a cold record, though we've certainly had colder before.
Only somewhat related, but I came across this:
Which is funny.
-
Although not this civilisation.I'd quite like to keep the whole "computers and Internet" thing, rather than reverting to the "0.1% of current population scraping a meagre subsistence lifestyle".
If nothing else, I'm not entirely certain I'm rich enough to be in the 0.1%.
A warmer climate isn't likely to cause us to lose our technology or to need to scrape by on a subsistence lifestyle. If anything, a warmer climate might actually be a net benefit for us. Not so much in coastal areas, but that's why I said "net benefit".
-
A warmer climate isn't likely to cause us to lose our technology or to need to scrape by on a subsistence lifestyle. If anything, a warmer climate might actually be a net benefit for us. Not so much in coastal areas, but that's why I said "net benefit".
The alarmists are expecting "warmer = drier", (i.e. the entire world turns into the Sahara, nobody can grow crops anywhere, and we're all screwed as a result as there's too little water running through the water cycle); the alternative, though, is "warmer = wetter" (i.e. the volume of water running through the water cycle goes up with temperature, which makes sense due to increased evaporation from surface water) which is something of a good thing in that accessible water is rapidly becoming a limiting resource in many ways -- and that warm, wet conditions are ideal for letting plants take advantage of the CO2!
Filed under: using our own wayward ways to our benefit
-
warmer...plants take advantage of the CO2!
Under conditions of higher CO2, plants tend to need less water. Win / Win!
-
Can you imagine the sheer amount of downvoting if we talked about this on Ars Technica? Holy fuck, the groupthink over there...
/ironic-offtopic
-
Under conditions of higher CO2, plants tend to need less water. Win / Win!
[more readily available water] + [plants need less water] + [more CO2 for plants] = [easier to grow food]Wouldn't that be considered a good thing?
-
It's odd: twice recently, I have seen someone post something in reply to boomzilla as if they are contradicting him, despite their words totally agreeing.
Does this often happen? My phrasing is sometimes so obscure that people think I say the opposite of what I really said, but his are fairly clear.
-
It's odd: twice recently, I have seen someone post something in reply to boomzilla as if they are contradicting him, despite their words totally agreeing.
It's one of those things that would make more sense if writing could convey tone better.
-
Does this often happen?
I like to exploit opportunities like that to hopefully point out that I'm not sitting around in my vault of money thinking, "Fuck that, I've got mine," about the rest of the world, but that maybe their ideas about what are or aren't good for the world / people aren't the only way to think about stuff.
People (including me) are not great about understanding how much of what they're saying relies on the assumptions they're making and how differently their conclusions could be if those assumptions aren't correct.
-
Heh, new thread title! AGW denier circlejerk. I see that someone wishes to foster open debate. Way to go!
-
Heh, new thread title! AGW denier circlejerk.
I like it!
I see that someone wishes to foster open debate.
Exactly who I thought it would be, too.
-
Exactly who I thought it would be, too.
Yeah, can't say I'm surprised.
BTW, to the one responsible, I don't think you can really say that we are really AGW. First off, the correct term now is "climate change", so ACC would be more correct. Second, none of us are denying that climate change is happening. We're just:
- Unconvinced that humans are the cause.
- Unconvinced of the magnitude of the changes that humans are making.
- Unconvinced that we really need to do anything about it.
Edit: Added New #1.1. Added emphasis to #1.
-
Unconvinced that humans are the cause.
Unconvinced that we really need to do anything about it.3. Unconvinced of the magnitude of the changes we're making.
-
Which really ought to precede 2.
-
-
@Magus said:
@boomzilla said:
3. Unconvinced of the magnitude of the changes we're making.
Which really ought to precede 2.
Yeah, but Markdown.Corrected.
-
[more readily available water] + [plants need less water] + [more CO2 for plants] = [easier to grow food]Wouldn't that be considered a good thing?
If it worked, yes. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Plants come in two types, some of which use a mechanism known as C3 photosynthesis, and others use C4 photosynthesis. (I believe they're different mechanisms for fixing CO2, which is not the reaction that chlorophyll is directly engaged in, which is actually about cracking water.) The problem is that higher CO2 levels make the fixing process less efficient — I think — and that the degree to which the process involved is affected varies between C3 and C4. There's also the effects of photorespiration (the real opposite to photosynthesis) to consider.
Short version: nobody's sure whether more CO2 will help or not, but testing at the greenhouse level has some people pretty worried. (The more you know… the more confused you get!)
-
testing at the greenhouse level has some people pretty worried
Does it? What level, specifically? I understand that commercial greenhouses like to pump up the CO2 to something like 2,000ppm.
-
OK, maybe @flabdablet was right:
-
Exactly. Humans have learned to adapt to extreme conditions in the past. To believe that we couldn't adapt to "extreme" temperature changes is, well, extremely stupid.
Which is why it makes a great strawman!(For those too dense, as has been said many times, the question isn't whether humanity will adapt, it's whether we'll adapt before there are areas of localized famine due to shifts in weather patterns, or wars over water access. For a strawman-via-the-extreme of my own, Humanity outlived the Boubonic Plague... but if you thought that there was a reasonable chance of a virus that would kill 1/3 of Europe in a few decades, and you sorta kinda knew how to probably less likely, wouldn't that be worth a lot of resources?)
--
I actually don't feel like I have much else to contribute at this point. I'll have to take a look at the CO2/temperature lagging thing a couple people cited, but I don't have time for that right now.
-
For those too dense, as has been said many times, the question isn't whether humanity will adapt, it's whether we'll adapt before there are areas of localized famine due to shifts in weather patterns, or wars over water access. For a strawman-via-the-extreme of my own...
Well, it's hard to say, of course, but I'm pretty confident that it's a better idea than fucking up our energy use to make us all poorer to try to prevent this outcome. And again, that's accepting the fantastic catastrophe scenario that the models are putting out.
