Climate Change Banter

[ORH_wxman]

ROFLMAO at calling A-L-E-C a denier.

 

 

The dude calls anyone who doesn't agree with him a denier.

[AvantHiatus]

The dude calls anyone who doesn't agree with him a denier.

 

Looks promising guys, nothing to see here.

[A-L-E-K]

A-L-E-C

 

 

[HailMan06]

Lol sorry typo.

[ORH_wxman]

 

Looks promising guys, nothing to see here.

 

 

There's a difference between climate change alarmists who actually use good scientific evidence to back up their claims versus others that completely ignore the vast majority of literature. The latter example is no better than true deniers who ignore the vast majority of scientific literature on the subject.

 

It's not fun to have to actually read the literautre...it can be tedious and time consuming. But if you want to educate yourself on the subject, then you have to suck it up and read it. Talking points from blogs are fun to post on forums, but they don't hold much weight when it comes to the scientific method.

[AvantHiatus]

Change your name. You will be in the club.

 

[Polar Vortex 2014]

 

Looks promising guys, nothing to see here.

 

Just remember the words of the wise Arthur Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

 

It's funny because the deniers over at WUWT used to misappropriate this phrase to their own sick purposes. But the reality is the truth will soon become self-evident. Actually, the reality is many ideas expressed here that are now widely accepted (besides from a few of the hardcore deniers) were just a few years ago ridiculed and/or violently opposed (to the point of being a "ban-able" offense). This forum has always been slow to accept the truth, but the truth will prevail one way or the other.

[AvantHiatus]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere

New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

 

One important area to consider is the troposphere. It is the bottom portion of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. Tropospheric temperatures can be taken by satellites, by weather balloons, or other instruments. In the past, both satellites and weather balloons reported no warming or even a cooling. 

Global carbon dioxide levels break 400ppm milestone

 

 

Read more

However, that original work was shown to be faulty and now even the most strident sceptics admit that the troposphere is warming. But obtaining an accurate estimate of the rate of warming is difficult. Changes to instruments, errors in measurements, short term fluctuations all can conspire to hide the “real” temperature. 

This is where the new study comes in. The authors develop a new method to account for natural variability, long-term trends, and instruments in the temperature measurement. They make three conclusions. 

First, warming of the atmosphere in the tropical regions of the globe hasn’t changed much since the late 1950s. Temperatures have increased smoothly and follow what is called the moist-adiabatic rate (temperature decrease of humid air with elevation). This result is in very close agreement with climate computer models and it contradicts the view that there is a slowdown in climate change. 

Second, the vertical height of the tropics that has warmed is a bit smaller than the models predict. Finally, there is a change in observed cooling in the stratosphere – the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere.

[ORH_wxman]

Just remember the words of the wise Arthur Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

 

It's funny because the deniers over at WUWT used to misappropriate this phrase to their own sick purposes. But the reality is the truth will soon become self-evident. Actually, the reality is many ideas expressed here that are now widely accepted (besides from a few of the hardcore deniers) were just a few years ago ridiculed and/or violently opposed (to the point of being a "ban-able" offense). This forum has always been slow to accept the truth, but the truth will prevail one way or the other.

 

 

It did take a while for some to come around to the idea that sea ice might not melt out in the next couple years, but I think most have finally accepted it.

[AvantHiatus]

Just remember the words of the wise Arthur Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

 

It's funny because the deniers over at WUWT used to misappropriate this phrase to their own sick purposes. But the reality is the truth will soon become self-evident. Actually, the reality is many ideas expressed here that are now widely accepted (besides from a few of the hardcore deniers) were just a few years ago ridiculed and/or violently opposed (to the point of being a "ban-able" offense). This forum has always been slow to accept the truth, but the truth will prevail one way or the other.

True story.

 

We've known about Global Warming collectively as a species since the late 80s. What seperates AGW from prior wide-scale conflicts and religious vs science upheavals is that AGW is, as Al Gore called it, 'A Inconvenient Truth' and it is the first time that mankind is being tamed by nature rather than the reverse. The urge to deny is a result of lacking the impetus and willpower to change rather than the actual existence of contrary evidence.

 

It's the worst kind of denial one can utilize. Sub-consciously this is the real motive even if deniers tell you otherwise. They may not realize that their denialism is a emotional disagreement.

 

People want to take the path of least resistance but they don't understand the situation collectively because following a agenda of climate denial is not the path of least resistance even in timescales relevant to a human lifespan.

 

AGW destroying humanity would be the ultimate example of human inferiority and our inability to look beyond our petty short-term desires, and it would be 100% our fault. I don't want that and I want our species to continue, at least as an advanced civilization. If we don't play our cards right, best-case we go back to square 1 or worst-case we go extinct.

 

In hindsight, we know we made mistakes in the past and present collectively. For example, few people realize that you cannot eliminate slavery completely without removing industrial civilization. 

 

The only upside of having AGW is that it brings humanity together in a unprecendented scale. All nations must come together and see the world without borders.

 

 

It did take a while for some to come around to the idea that sea ice might not melt out in the next couple years, but I think most have finally accepted it.

wow ORH.

[ORH_wxman]

 

 

wow ORH.

 

 

True story

[superjames1992]

One-way trip to permaburn hell.

The D16 GFS??????????

[CoastalWx]

True story

 

 

Every alarmist just through their laptop and possibly pet, out the window.

[CoastalWx]

True story.

 

We've known about Global Warming collectively as a species since the late 80s. What seperates AGW from prior wide-scale conflicts and religious vs science upheavals is that AGW is, as Al Gore called it, 'A Inconvenient Truth' and it is the first time that mankind is being tamed by nature rather than the reverse. The urge to deny is a result of lacking the impetus and willpower to change rather than the actual existence of contrary evidence.

 

It's the worst kind of denial one can utilize. Sub-consciously this is the real motive even if deniers tell you otherwise. They may not realize that their denialism is a emotional disagreement.

 

People want to take the path of least resistance but they don't understand the situation collectively because following a agenda of climate denial is not the path of least resistance even in timescales relevant to a human lifespan.

 

AGW destroying humanity would be the ultimate example of human inferiority and our inability to look beyond our petty short-term desires, and it would be 100% our fault. I don't want that and I want our species to continue, at least as an advanced civilization. If we don't play our cards right, best-case we go back to square 1 or worst-case we go extinct.

 

In hindsight, we know we made mistakes in the past and present collectively. For example, few people realize that you cannot eliminate slavery completely without removing industrial civilization. 

 

The only upside of having AGW is that it brings humanity together in a unprecendented scale. All nations must come together and see the world without borders.

wow ORH.

LOL, humanity together? Most don't give a sh*t.  

[WinterWxLuvr]

I disagree. Who will be programming those "humanless" financial advisors? Who will build the robots? Who will program the robots? Who will repair and upgrade the robots? Who will design next year's version of the robot/software/etc?

Even discounting all of that, the economy will invent and require new jobs that we haven't even thought of. 100 years ago, who ever thought there would be such a job as a "web programmer?" Or a "software programmer?" Of course, the demand for horse-drawn carriages has subsided dramatically since then, too. So there will always be jobs, they will just be different. Just like there always has been. People will still be able to aquire wealth and the incentive to do such that implies.

Global warming, in the long run, is a net negative for humans and most animals. Our advanced society has existed only in the climate we are experiencing today. Our cities, transportation, and farming practices are finely honed to work in this climate. Major disruptions will only make these less efficient and more expensive.

Gaining farm land in more northern lattitudes will not be able to offset the farm land lost further south. Not only is that northern land less hospitable to farming (poorer soil, etc.), but the amount of light available is different than what we have now. Growing season will have to start later due to available sunlight, and it will be shorter in length. We are unsure at this point if these new, further north farmlands will have enough rain during the growing season in a new, warmer climate. Or maybe too much rain.

This doesn't account for all the coastal cities that will be lost to sea level rise. How much cost is there to build giant seawalls to hold back the ocean, or to relocate entire populations? These are not trivial tasks.

All current research shows that it is far cheaper to stop emitting CO2 now than it will be to live with the effects in the future. That will have a larger effect on the ecomony than the concern of losing jobs to robots.

Here are some opinions that might alter yours.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555092/Bill-Gates-Stephen-Hawking-Artificial-Intelligence-AI-threat-mankind

[Jonger]

If Day 16 models were worth looking at, I'd average over 500 inches of snow every winter.

[Jonger]

True story.

 

We've known about Global Warming collectively as a species since the late 80s. What seperates AGW from prior wide-scale conflicts and religious vs science upheavals is that AGW is, as Al Gore called it, 'A Inconvenient Truth' and it is the first time that mankind is being tamed by nature rather than the reverse. The urge to deny is a result of lacking the impetus and willpower to change rather than the actual existence of contrary evidence.

 

It's the worst kind of denial one can utilize. Sub-consciously this is the real motive even if deniers tell you otherwise. They may not realize that their denialism is a emotional disagreement.

 

People want to take the path of least resistance but they don't understand the situation collectively because following a agenda of climate denial is not the path of least resistance even in timescales relevant to a human lifespan.

 

AGW destroying humanity would be the ultimate example of human inferiority and our inability to look beyond our petty short-term desires, and it would be 100% our fault. I don't want that and I want our species to continue, at least as an advanced civilization. If we don't play our cards right, best-case we go back to square 1 or worst-case we go extinct.

 

In hindsight, we know we made mistakes in the past and present collectively. For example, few people realize that you cannot eliminate slavery completely without removing industrial civilization. 

 

The only upside of having AGW is that it brings humanity together in a unprecendented scale. All nations must come together and see the world without borders.

wow ORH.

 

Better be careful, you're tipping your hand.

[AvantHiatus]

Better be careful, you're tipping your hand.

Fear mongering doesn't work here.

[AvantHiatus]

LOL, humanity together? Most don't give a sh*t.  

Then we are doomed for the extinction club. Because you can't have a divided world with our current technology. Something will inevitably happen.

 

Earth is your pet, just throw that crap out the window. No harm done, euthanasia is the best medicine.

[CoastalWx]

Then we are doomed for the extinction club. Because you can't have a divided world with our current technology. Something will inevitably happen.

Earth is your pet, just throw that crap out the window. No harm done, euthanasia is the best medicine.

Well the problem is that people have real problems. Nobody cares if we broke a record by .03C. People hear it on the news and it's enough to trigger the emotion of "oh dear that doesn't sound good.." and then it's forgotten 30 seconds later. Most people have other issues to deal with.

[AvantHiatus]

Well the problem is that people have real problems. Nobody cares if we broke a record by .03C. People hear it on the news and it's enough to trigger the emotion of "oh dear that doesn't sound good.." and then it's forgotten 30 seconds later. Most people have other issues to deal with.

It would help if people would understand AGW attribution. I think California has woken up due to their drought and what not. If you think Snowmageddon or Hurricane Sandy was not AGW related then of course you are just going to brush the issue aside.

 

So breaking records and numerical benchmarks have less bearing for sure. So I guess we should expect people to care less about AGW as times goes on as a result of more problems from natural climate change. 

[ORH_wxman]

It would help if people would understand AGW attribution. I think California has woken up due to their drought and what not. If you think Snowmageddon or Hurricane Sandy was not AGW related then of course you are just going to brush the issue aside.

 

So breaking records and numerical benchmarks have less bearing for sure. So I guess we should expect people to care less about AGW as times goes on as a result of more problems from natural climate change. 

 

 

It's something that the scientists who study AGW don't understand well, so it's no surprise the public doesn't understand it.

[CoastalWx]

It would help if people would understand AGW attribution. I think California has woken up due to their drought and what not. If you think Snowmageddon or Hurricane Sandy was not AGW related then of course you are just going to brush the issue aside.

 

So breaking records and numerical benchmarks have less bearing for sure. So I guess we should expect people to care less about AGW as times goes on as a result of more problems from natural climate change. 

 

Wow, sounds like you have it solved?  Blaming specific events on CC isn't helping the situation. 

[bluewave]

Well the problem is that people have real problems. Nobody cares if we broke a record by .03C. People hear it on the news and it's enough to trigger the emotion of "oh dear that doesn't sound good.." and then it's forgotten 30 seconds later. Most people have other issues to deal with.

 

Exactly. 

 

[FloridaJohn]

Here are some opinions that might alter yours.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555092/Bill-Gates-Stephen-Hawking-Artificial-Intelligence-AI-threat-mankind

Sorry, no they don't. That second article is just a summary of the first article.

 

Neither Stephen Hawking nor Bill Gates are experts in Artificial Intelligence. But even ignoring that, this is not something society should be concerned with at the moment. There is almost an infinate number of things that could change that would make their prediction never happen. The "warning" they are giving has been around since the 1950s. As of yet, none of those predictions have come true. I do believe that one day there will be robots that look and act human walking among us, but that day is very, very far away. The time that HAL from the movie 2001 or the Terminator exist is much farther in the future than that.

 

What I do know is that continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere will result in changes to the environment that are harmful to our society. Those changes will be more disruptive, cost more, and happen long begore the threat of robots taking over the earth. If you want something to be concerned about that is within our current event horizon, climate change is it.

[chubbs]

Climate is not the perfect cognitive challenge but its amorphous nature creates the ideal conditions for human denial and cognitive bias to come to the for

 

DANIEL KAHNEMAN is not hopeful. “I am very sorry,” he told me, “but I am deeply pessimistic. I really see no path to success on climate change.”

 

Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel prize in economics for his research on the psychological biases that distort rational decision-making. One of these is “loss aversion”, which means that people are far more sensitive to losses than gains. He regards climate change as a perfect trigger: a distant problem that requires sacrifices now to avoid uncertain losses far in the future. This combination is exceptionally hard for us to accept, he told me.

 

http://climatedenial.org/2014/08/20/climate-change-the-slippery-problem/

[FloridaJohn]

Climate is not the perfect cognitive challenge but its amorphous nature creates the ideal conditions for human denial and cognitive bias to come to the for

 

It's grim, but it is not hopeless. The world has come together on similar circumstances in the past, so it is possible to make it happen again in the future. The battle is tougher now, because the invested interests have learned from their past mistakes and are more formidable adversary now, and, as you pointed out, human nature works against these sort of initiatives. It's a literal tragedy of the commons. It will happen, but it won't be easy or quick.

[ORH_wxman]

The biggest problem in tackling climate change is that the most extreme voices tend to be the loudest. You have a camp that tries to argue that we haven't warmed at all or even if we have, it is all natural. Then you have a camp that basically blames every weather event on climate change and pimps RCP 8.5 scenarios that are extremely unlikely but they sound disastrous. Then from these two groups, you get mud slinging and the strawmans begin to get built. It's counter productive.

It is no wonder that a lot of the general public has a very tepid attitude toward it. Their attitude toward climate change starts to mirror their attitude and dissatisfaction toward the state of American politics.

[chubbs]

The biggest problem in tackling climate change is that the most extreme voices tend to be the loudest. You have a camp that tries to argue that we haven't warmed at all or even if we have, it is all natural. Then you have a camp that basically blames every weather event on climate change and pimps RCP 8.5 scenarios that are extremely unlikely but they sound disastrous. Then from these two groups, you get mud slinging and the strawmans begin to get built. It's counter productive.

It is no wonder that a lot of the general public has a very tepid attitude toward it. Their attitude toward climate change starts to mirror their attitude and dissatisfaction toward the state of American politics.

 

That certainly contributes but if climate change was easier for people to come to grips with there would be less motivation to deny, ignore.or exaggerate. 

[ORH_wxman]

That certainly contributes but if climate change was easier for people to come to grips with there would be less motivation to deny, ignore.or exaggerate. 

 

There are also a lot more pressing concerns in people's lives than the threat of climate change. It is unsurprising that a difficult-to-quantify threat out into the future is low on the list of the general public's priorities versus more immediate problems such as the economy and terrorism.

 

 

Regardless, a more honest attempt at educating the public would be the best solution. Unforunately the extremist groups decide they think they know best when it comes to educating. The media has been mostly a disaster as well.