Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«260 »
  • Locked thread
toy
Apr 19, 2001


Fox Cunning posted:

I think this brilliant talk speaks for itself. Basically the answer to a lot of problems is related to cattle.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savo...ate_change.html

A spot of hope. The only critique I see on his Wiki refers to the technique not having much effect on soil that's been previously tilled.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ihmemies
Oct 6, 2012



Yeah, well, everything went as expected: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ipartisan-vote/

If US of A is not willing to do "anything" to stop climate change, why would some other country be?

rivetz
Sep 22, 2000



Grimey Drawer

Holy Calamity! posted:

Arkane actually posted a reasoned position, is anyone able to respond to them with anything other than ad hominem attacks? I lurk this thread because there are several knowledgeable, intelligent people on both sides who come in with interesting (sometimes) well reasoned points of view. But as of late? What happened to "report it and move on"?

Yes, I realize that could apply to this post, I'd just really like to see some good faith responses to Arkane's last post.
I could take a stab at it but I'd just be paraphrasing analyses read elsewhere and misrepresenting myself as knowing much more about the underlying science than I do (although I do understand the general positions on both sides of the Marcott debate.) HotWhopper has (imo) a pretty thorough dissection of perceived fallacies in the criticism of the study but I'd prefer to wait for the authors to release a formal response.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008



Ihmemies posted:

Yeah, well, everything went as expected: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ipartisan-vote/

If US of A is not willing to do "anything" to stop climate change, why would some other country be?

I still don't understand why this is a big deal.

Killer-of-Lawyers
Apr 22, 2008

Introspection is for the weak.
It's others fault we lost.

Never let us lose ground to the filthy left and remove Dear Abuela.

Clinton/Kaine 2020
She's learned from her mistakes for really reals. IT'S HER TURN AGAIN AGAIN.


Kafka Esq. posted:

Apparently, the guy is a wild self-promoter and has very little in the way of successful examples of this. I also want it to be true, though.

edit: if someone is really interested, you can compare the detractors with the peer-reviewed stuff in their portfolio.

I suppose at it's base, it makes sense. I mean, there were seas of buffalo before we shot them all to kill off the natives.

satan!!!
Nov 7, 2012


hobbesmaster posted:

I still don't understand why this is a big deal.

I'm also in this camp. The oil is coming out of the ground regardless, so why force the pipeline to not run through the US? As long as the local impacts are managed, this isn't that problematic.

Mediochre
Jul 3, 2002


satan!!! posted:

I'm also in this camp. The oil is coming out of the ground regardless, so why force the pipeline to not run through the US? As long as the local impacts are managed, this isn't that problematic.

The bolded part is the big deal.

It's actually essential, if we're going to prevent environmental catastrophe, that we drastically reduce the amount of energy derived from fossil fuels worldwide. This means we're going to have to leave a lot of oil in the ground. Your statement treats market forces as if they are some fundamental law of nature, and assumes that there is nothing the United States can do to effect meaningful change on the climate issue, and might as well jump on board and grab some of that oil for itself.

The United States is actually the most powerful country in the world and it can take steps to make sure fossil fuels stay buried instead of making the problem worse. It can start by ratifying Kyoto and putting pressure on its trading partners (Canada does like 80% of its trade with the US) to meet international greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Then it can invest in renewable technology and encourage energy efficiency through taxation or economic incentives, and encourage other countries to follow its lead. Critically, it can also reject new fossil fuel infrastructure such as Keystone and send a serious message to the energy industry that the cheap fossil fuel party is over, and that expanding fossil fuel production is unacceptable in the light of modern climate science.

I wouldn't personally care about Keystone XL if it was some sort of efficiency measure, built to improve energy security in the short run while North America transitions away from fossil fuels, aggressively and rapidly. But the entire point is to expand the market for Canadian oil and thus expand its extraction, with no plan at all for transitioning away from fossil fuels and a large part of government denying that climate change even exists or is a serious problem. Given this massive level of government inaction, it is not wrong for activists to protest Keystone XL and any other project that will lead to expanded fossil fuel extraction.

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

I suppose at it's base, it makes sense. I mean, there were seas of buffalo before we shot them all to kill off the natives.

Yeah, I've always wondered what long term impacts we'll see due to removing the hundreds of millions of buffalo from the plains.

Ihmemies
Oct 6, 2012



rivetz posted:

Can I ask where you got this?

Salt Fish posted:

That graph is interesting but leaves out a lot of context. What is the total energy in joules of each of these areas in the first place? A change of 15*10^22 joules in total oceanic energy could be an extreme change or it could be a completely negligable change. I'm also interested in why the graph starts at 1960. Is this the first year data is available?

I assume the graph is from this study (for which I do not have access): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/....50382/abstract

Abstract posted:

[1] The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

Which would explain the perceived slowing of temperature increase in land areas. Here's at least one writeup regarding the article: http://www.skepticalscience.com/new...ccelerated.html

rivetz
Sep 22, 2000



Grimey Drawer

Anyone following the back-and-forth on Markoff et al? Lots of jockeying, but honestly I think that both sides have gotten so good at the standard lines of attack/defense that, even for someone who's somewhat hip to the science, it's very difficult to ascertain who's full of poo poo on this one.

I will say that Roger Pielke's "Not that I would accuse any of these folks of scientific misconduct, but ehhh let me base my article on it anyway" really pissed me off. The ensuing comments are a good read.

rivetz fucked around with this message at Apr 4, 2013 around 01:57

Son of Rodney
Feb 22, 2006

This one


Just out of curiosity, what website offer the best amount of current information about climate change for the layman? I currently browse sciencedaily.com and thinkprogress.org when looking for new information, but I'm sure there's more out there.

The Experience
Dec 20, 2003



Son of Rodney, try https://www.skepticalscience.com

Can anyone provide a good refutation of that Economist.com article (http://www.economist.com/news/scien...-gas-emissions/) that has been going around that everyone keeps talking about?

I believe the article quotes a non-peer-reviewed paper that claims something like "Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."

I have heard that the largest temperature increases have occurred at the bottom of the oceans and further up in the atmosphere. Not sure if that's all there is to it or what.

Torka
Jan 5, 2008



The Experience posted:

Can anyone provide a good refutation of that Economist.com article (http://www.economist.com/news/scien...-gas-emissions/) that has been going around that everyone keeps talking about?

I believe the article quotes a non-peer-reviewed paper that claims something like "Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."

I have heard that the largest temperature increases have occurred at the bottom of the oceans and further up in the atmosphere. Not sure if that's all there is to it or what.

Hahaha we're really loving backsliding now if it's once more in dispute whether climate change is occuring at all, rather than that being an accepted fact and the debate being about whether humans are causing it.

duck monster
Dec 15, 2004



quote:

Hahaha we're really loving backsliding now if it's once more in dispute whether climate change is occuring at all, rather than that being an accepted fact and the debate being about whether humans are causing it.

For what its worth, the biologists have been putting up with similar poo poo from the creationists for over a century now.

Pseudo-science and a failure to correctly identify whos expert and whos not are going to be the death of us, sadly.

I mean if Arkane who has no excuse but to have read hundreds of pages explaining why he's put his bets on the crazy-horse still has his tin-foil hat so firmly affixed after all this, god help the sprawling masses getting a far more one sided injection of crankery from the murdoch press or the loony blogosphere.

rivetz
Sep 22, 2000



Grimey Drawer

I'm having a bitch of a time with the latest thing in denialist strategy, the "scientific consensus" argument. I'm aware of the rebuttals, but drat, it's ultimately just a transparent high road that's maddeningly difficult to overcome. The strength of the position lies in saying that since there are folks who dispute AGW, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is supporting AGW because ignoring scientist or researchers who have reached different conclusions is sabotaging the integrity of the scientific method .

Hitch
Jul 1, 2012



rivetz posted:

I'm having a bitch of a time with the latest thing in denialist strategy, the "scientific consensus" argument. I'm aware of the rebuttals, but drat, it's ultimately just a transparent high road that's maddeningly difficult to overcome. The strength of the position lies in saying that since there are folks who dispute AGW, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is supporting AGW because ignoring scientist or researchers who have reached different conclusions is sabotaging the integrity of the scientific method .

I agree with you, but typed the paragraph below in a fit of rage. It's not directed at you rivetz!

Except the entire variety of all scientific fields relies on consensus. e.g. The cancer treatments that doctors prescribe every single day are determined by large clinical trials that test for the efficacy of different methods. They are well controlled and work to eliminate biases and other confounding factors. The treatments we have today wouldn't be anywhere near as effective, or lead us to explore different alternatives unless we placed value on the consensus. Any fool can go out and conduct a trial where they conclude one method or one idea as being true (see Andrew Wakefield). But not until the scientific community as a whole can reproduce, falsify, expand upon and effectively implement the results can we determine what is an effective form of cancer.

In my view, the same must work for global warming. Any fool can find data for or against global warming. Until you bring your thoughts to the table through publication and public debate among experts in that field, you can be discounted. Moreover, in the case of AGW, there are so many different areas whose science can impact the climate that the consensus must be that much more valuable. An oceanographer may find something he concludes contributes to AGW, just as a geologist might. But the two will know very little about each other's field. Only when you take all of these areas into account, seismologists, geologists, oceanographers, biologists, atmospheric scientists, dendrochronology, paleoclimatology, glaciologists, etc.

Vermain
Sep 5, 2006




I was at a talk with Gwynne Dyer recently, and he mentioned that it's nearly impossible to find actual scientists (that is, people with any kind of credible scientific background) willing to try and discredit climate change, to the degree that he's interviewing around 200 scientists claiming that climate change exists for every one scientist that denies its existence.

An important thing he pointed out is that, by and large, the denialists do not actually produce evidence, in terms of scientific rigor - the claims are not falsifiable, or the evidence is very select and misrepresentative, etc. What they produce is doubt, and doubt is a very powerful tool, because it frees us of the reasonable duty to do anything. Ultimately, the only "real" rebuttal that can be given is that there is an overwhelming amount of data - hard, actual data using complex modeling - pointing towards both the gradual warming trend the planet is undergoing and the anthropogenic nature of it.

satan!!!
Nov 7, 2012


Torka posted:

Hahaha we're really loving backsliding now if it's once more in dispute whether climate change is occuring at all, rather than that being an accepted fact and the debate being about whether humans are causing it.

The article isn't disputing that CC is occurring though. The opening paragraph -

quote:

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Isn't 'denying' anything, this is all a fair interpretation of the dataset cited in the first graph on the article. Read the whole thing, I don't think it's saying what you think it is.

Paper Mac
Mar 2, 2007

lives in a paper shack

Vermain posted:

I was at a talk with Gwynne Dyer recently, and he mentioned that it's nearly impossible to find actual scientists (that is, people with any kind of credible scientific background) willing to try and discredit climate change, to the degree that he's interviewing around 200 scientists claiming that climate change exists for every one scientist that denies its existence.

What's Gwynne Dyer saying these days, anyway? Climate Wars had at least a tiny note of optimism in it, but I think at this point we're headed for some of his more dire scenarios.

duck monster
Dec 15, 2004



Vermain posted:

I was at a talk with Gwynne Dyer recently, and he mentioned that it's nearly impossible to find actual scientists (that is, people with any kind of credible scientific background) willing to try and discredit climate change, to the degree that he's interviewing around 200 scientists claiming that climate change exists for every one scientist that denies its existence.

An important thing he pointed out is that, by and large, the denialists do not actually produce evidence, in terms of scientific rigor - the claims are not falsifiable, or the evidence is very select and misrepresentative, etc. What they produce is doubt, and doubt is a very powerful tool, because it frees us of the reasonable duty to do anything. Ultimately, the only "real" rebuttal that can be given is that there is an overwhelming amount of data - hard, actual data using complex modeling - pointing towards both the gradual warming trend the planet is undergoing and the anthropogenic nature of it.

Oh you'll find scientists who will tell you straight up its not happening.

But its incredibly unlikely the scientist has any qualification to make that claim with credibility. They always seem to be geologists, chemists, biologists, and so on.

But its part of that whole failure to recognize expertise. It doesn't matter to the press that a geologist is about as qualified to comment on the matter as his accountant, he's still a "scientist" as far as the press is concerned, and he's the scientist reporting the story the chief editor wants to hear.

Vermain
Sep 5, 2006




Paper Mac posted:

What's Gwynne Dyer saying these days, anyway? Climate Wars had at least a tiny note of optimism in it, but I think at this point we're headed for some of his more dire scenarios.

As far as I could tell, Gwynne's in the camp that, like it or not, some sort of geoengineering scheme is going to be appearing in the near future in an attempt to mitigate the effects of global warming. His essential argument is that emissions treaties like Kyoto are inevitably doomed to fail in the present day, since they tend to not take history into account (re: rich, already industrialized countries telling poorer industrializing countries they need to cut emissions by the same amounts). While there are alternative energy sources cropping up - solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc. - they're cropping up at a rate that is far to slow to keep things below 450 ppm, and that arctic feedbacks are going to gently caress everyone over as a result.

Mostly what's changed since he wrote Climate Wars was that scientists suddenly began talking openly about geoengineering schemes, whereas two years previous it was a rather taboo subject. According to Gwynne, a lot of the proposals, such as sulfate aerosol dispersion, would be cheap enough to implement that they don't require economic superpowers to do them - even Bangladesh could apparently afford it. It's some reasonably hopeful stuff, although my own research (and the research of a lot of others in this thread) indicates that the majority of them still have major kinks to work out (such as aerosol size and the frequency of dispersion), and are dependent upon some sort of reasonable international stability to work (since any stoppage of the aerosol injections, assuming an increase above 450 ppm and subsequent predicted feedbacks, would cause the temperature to skyrocket over a few decades).

What I mostly got from his talk was not that there's technological quick-fixes to any of this stuff, but that international coordination and communication is more vital than ever. You can't create resiliency, nor implement geoengineering properly, nor reduce emissions unless there is significantly more hand-holding going on.

duck monster posted:

But its part of that whole failure to recognize expertise. It doesn't matter to the press that a geologist is about as qualified to comment on the matter as his accountant, he's still a "scientist" as far as the press is concerned, and he's the scientist reporting the story the chief editor wants to hear.

One thing I'm actually curious about now - and I don't know if Pew has done another study on it for 2012 - is if global attitudes towards climate change have shifted much since 2009. The rhetoric over climate change seems to have shifted concretely, considering that even the government of the United States is starting to admit that it's a problem.

Vermain fucked around with this message at Apr 5, 2013 around 04:01

rivetz
Sep 22, 2000



Grimey Drawer

Vermain posted:

One thing I'm actually curious about now - and I don't know if Pew has done another study on it for 2012 - is if global attitudes towards climate change have shifted much since 2009. The rhetoric over climate change seems to have shifted concretely, considering that even the government of the United States is starting to admit that it's a problem.
This is anecdotal to the point of irrelevance, but I visited this past weekend with a high school buddy who's an executive with a REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) management group, and frequently travels to Africa and the Middle East to consult on projects. I asked him what the general perception is there, if the warming trend is still even a conversation. Evidently it isn't at all, at least not in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Saudi Arabia; the conflicts and barriers come not from whether or not to do anything, or even what to do, but who will manage and direct the project. Bureaucracy and politics. I'm sure once we inevitably cross some threshold of acceptance here in the U.S, we won't have to worry about that slowing things down!

rivetz fucked around with this message at Apr 5, 2013 around 06:28

the_korben
Mar 28, 2010

What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?


duck monster posted:

Oh you'll find scientists who will tell you straight up its not happening.

But its incredibly unlikely the scientist has any qualification to make that claim with credibility. They always seem to be geologists, chemists, biologists, and so on.

But its part of that whole failure to recognize expertise. It doesn't matter to the press that a geologist is about as qualified to comment on the matter as his accountant, he's still a "scientist" as far as the press is concerned, and he's the scientist reporting the story the chief editor wants to hear.

Just to briefly interject, I'm a scientist from outside the field myself. In general, I do think that scientists from whatever field are more qualified to talk about scientific issues than, e.g., a business guy. Of course, without being a specialist in the field you cannot talk about the details of current research issues, but as a scientist you should be able to understand the current scientific consensus and why it is preferred to other possible explanations. This is something that a layperson cannot do as easily.

It always annoys me when people discredit scientific expertise because it does not come from the specific field in question. In other words, if an astrophysicist explains to a reporter why climate change is happening, I think it's a good thing and he or she shouldn't be discredited as "Well, but he's not a climate scientist therefore his opinion is worthless." On the other hand, if the astrophysicist goes against the consensus and spouts some fringe opinion, that is when the lack of expertise becomes important and that's when it should be pointed out. I think the difference is really important here.

Just my two cents.

Dreylad
Jun 19, 2001


Paper Mac posted:

What's Gwynne Dyer saying these days, anyway? Climate Wars had at least a tiny note of optimism in it, but I think at this point we're headed for some of his more dire scenarios.

One of his most recent posts is promoting the notion that we need to accept GMO crops in order to prevent societal collapse: between climate change and another predicted billion of us on this planet, we need to keep agricultural yields going up in order to cope with the planet's population.

Needless to say he's not popular in certain segments of the left and of the right.

TACD
Oct 27, 2000

Proud leader of the "0.999... = 1" Army

rivetz posted:

I'm having a bitch of a time with the latest thing in denialist strategy, the "scientific consensus" argument. I'm aware of the rebuttals, but drat, it's ultimately just a transparent high road that's maddeningly difficult to overcome. The strength of the position lies in saying that since there are folks who dispute AGW, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is supporting AGW because ignoring scientist or researchers who have reached different conclusions is sabotaging the integrity of the scientific method .
There is no debate anymore, and consensus can be considered effectively 100%



Nobody is 'ignoring' the (real) studies that reach differing conclusions. They're just so few and far between that they can easily be ascribed to noise. It's climate deniers who are ignoring literally thousands of studies and reviews that agree climate change is real, and it's human-caused.

Honestly, at this point I have 'climate deniers' in the same spot in my head as 'flat Earthers'. Anybody who has made an honest effort to get informed and has reached a conclusion that climate change is not real / not human caused is simply not reasoning correctly, and it's therefore fruitless to keep on reasoning with them. If somebody came along earnestly trying to put forward a case for why the Earth is flat, I wouldn't try to persuade them otherwise, I'd just smile pityingly and move on; at this point I feel the same way about climate deniers. I'd probably point somebody to a page like the one linked above in case they genuinely just weren't aware, and then be done with it.

Hitch
Jul 1, 2012



TACD posted:

Honestly, at this point I have 'climate deniers' in the same spot in my head as 'flat Earthers'. Anybody who has made an honest effort to get informed and has reached a conclusion that climate change is not real / not human caused is simply not reasoning correctly, and it's therefore fruitless to keep on reasoning with them. If somebody came along earnestly trying to put forward a case for why the Earth is flat, I wouldn't try to persuade them otherwise, I'd just smile pityingly and move on; at this point I feel the same way about climate deniers. I'd probably point somebody to a page like the one linked above in case they genuinely just weren't aware, and then be done with it.

I think this hits the nail on the head for me. I would throw in those that deny evolution, which is a much stronger case. It's not that people can not accept evolution, it's that if evolution were not true nothing in biology would make sense. (See Dobzhansky's Light of Evolution!)

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008



duck monster posted:

Oh you'll find scientists who will tell you straight up its not happening.

But its incredibly unlikely the scientist has any qualification to make that claim with credibility. They always seem to be geologists, chemists, biologists, and so on.

But its part of that whole failure to recognize expertise. It doesn't matter to the press that a geologist is about as qualified to comment on the matter as his accountant, he's still a "scientist" as far as the press is concerned, and he's the scientist reporting the story the chief editor wants to hear.

Who could be better qualified than a geologist?

UP AND ADAM
Jan 24, 2007
O_O I'll be in my bunk... ;)

Probably scientists who either study the systems that react to changes in climate, like oceanographers or ecologists, or climate or atmospheric scientists who study climate change directly. Geology as a science is sort of "set in stone" and won't show reactions to climate change as quickly as a living system.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008



Hmm, yes despite my old school's department system Earth Sciences and Geology are not synonyms.

JAY ZERO SUM GAME
Oct 18, 2005

Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

The only really vociferous scientists who was climate change denier at my alma mater, a school with an engineering department tied hand in fist with the gas industry, was a geologist.

So no, I don't think they have much to say worth listening to. Also, they're geologists, not climate scientists. Virtually nothing in common.

Dogstoyevsky
Oct 9, 2012

If there is no Dog, everything is permitted

satan!!! posted:

The article isn't disputing that CC is occurring though. The opening paragraph -

[Economist article quote]

Isn't 'denying' anything, this is all a fair interpretation of the dataset cited in the first graph on the article. Read the whole thing, I don't think it's saying what you think it is.

I'm trying to grasp the gist of this phenomenon because this article (despite the fact that it seems to be pretty much saying that CC is still a thing, just that models might need to be reexamined) is being thrown around a lot on the right-wing blogosphere lately. More or less, the contention is: "If more carbon, why not more heat?" Which strikes me as dumb, because we're still looking at a pretty small time interval (a decade), and climate change isn't limited to temperature (ocean acidification), and climatological data is noisy because anthropogenic inputs aren't the only ones, right?

I don't understand climate, so I'm hoping someone who actually reviews the literature can explain why this is a total red herring using small words.

Hitch
Jul 1, 2012



JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:

So no, I don't think they have much to say worth listening to. Also, they're geologists, not climate scientists. Virtually nothing in common.

I completely disagree. There is a lot of history that can be uncovered and contributed through geology. As an example, ice core drilling yields a record of polar temperatures and atmospheric composition -- up to 120,000 years ago. Oceanic sediment can preserve a record reaching back tens of millions of years. Older sedimentary rocks go to hundreds of millions of years. They can (and have) write whole books of evidence solely from geology that makes statements about climate in the past. That history gives us a better understanding of (through comparison) of our current state.

I don't have time at work right now to find a good peer-reviewed article based off of geological evidence, but this site details some of the things they often look at.

Past climates — evidence

Ihmemies
Oct 6, 2012



Dogstoyevsky posted:

I'm trying to grasp the gist of this phenomenon because this article (despite the fact that it seems to be pretty much saying that CC is still a thing, just that models might need to be reexamined) is being thrown around a lot on the right-wing blogosphere lately. More or less, the contention is: "If more carbon, why not more heat?"

Well there is more heat, it's just currently warming seawater.

rivetz
Sep 22, 2000



Grimey Drawer

Hitch posted:

I completely disagree. There is a lot of history that can be uncovered and contributed through geology. As an example, ice core drilling yields a record of polar temperatures and atmospheric composition -- up to 120,000 years ago. Oceanic sediment can preserve a record reaching back tens of millions of years. Older sedimentary rocks go to hundreds of millions of years. They can (and have) write whole books of evidence solely from geology that makes statements about climate in the past. That history gives us a better understanding of (through comparison) of our current state.

I don't have time at work right now to find a good peer-reviewed article based off of geological evidence, but this site details some of the things they often look at.

Past climates — evidence
Agreed, but I think the point is that the usefulness is somewhat limited given the clear evidence of comparatively rapid changes; AGW is unprecedented, and so the geological record is of limited assistance.

This isn't directly related to climate change but I'm posting it because it was directly inspired by this thread's title and the way that so many of us have progressed to an "ehh gently caress. gently caress it" conclusion: http://www.freewoodpost.com/2013/04...-reboot-button/

UP AND ADAM
Jan 24, 2007
O_O I'll be in my bunk... ;)

I know about all that. If the geologists that come forward with their opinion have a background in studying ice cores or ocean sediments then that expertise and knowledge should certainly be welcomed. A lot of the time, though, and I'm not attempting to state a definitive fact here, the geologist you see working for the anti-climate change cause has a background in petroleum extraction or some other vested anti-environment interest. I've just noticed that correlation a lot and it's sort of funny.

rivetz
Sep 22, 2000



Grimey Drawer

I agree and think it's unfortunate, because it becomes so easy to assume/suspect a separate agenda, but I bet it's realistically very hard to be a prominent geologist and not have some connection to the petroleum industry. I mean, they're going to want to hire the best authorities as consultants. It's kind of like people freak out when someone who was an exec with some lovely/dirty company gets a job on a Senate subcommittee or something. I'm as guilty of jumping to conclusions as anyone, but I admit the logic is faulty:

You want good people for [Finance Committee XYZ], people with experience working with bigass sums of money, for example
Person in question has a raft of experience in the field
Person got that experience by working for some bigass Fortune 500 company
Most Fortune 500 companies have some degree of corruption or have engaged in illegal activity
Conclusion: THEY'RE HIRING MORE CROOKS, GODDAMNIT WASHINGTON

Similar leap of reasoning. It's possible and maybe even probable in some cases, but I need to stop assuming that just because anyone ever worked in the petroleum industry means they're corrupt shills. ExxonMobil alone has like 80,000+ employees nationwide, and I'm sure plenty of those are geologists, and plenty of those geologists are very good at their job.

UP AND ADAM
Jan 24, 2007
O_O I'll be in my bunk... ;)

Okay, that's true. I don't think my input is very highly regarded in the international discussion on climate change, but you made me see clarity on that at least.

got any sevens
Feb 9, 2013

Only the smallest QB can ascend.


My college's Geology department was renamed "Earth and Space Sciences" and meged with atmospheric and space courses back around 2000. So we got a comprehensive degree, though you still had a selection of classes and could focus more on one side or the other. It's a shame that almost the only place to get hired with a geology degree is oil or construction fields. I did construction consulting for a few years but grew to hate it and couldn't tolerate helping oil companies, so now my degree is kinda useless. So not all geologists are bad, but a good portion are because they love rocks and have to whore themselves out to oil companies for a paycheck in that field.

Paper Mac
Mar 2, 2007

lives in a paper shack

I think geologists get picked on because a lot of them tend to leave out the prefix specifying their subfield- that is, they're (petroleum) geologists..

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Benagain
Oct 10, 2007


Fun Shoe

Warbadger posted:

Yeah, I've always wondered what long term impacts we'll see due to removing the hundreds of millions of buffalo from the plains.

I'd recommend 1491 and 1493 as books everyone should read anyway, but the author suggests that huge vast herds of buffalo and passenger pigeons were aberrations themselves, caused by the mass deaths of the native human population which had been keeping them in check.

  • Locked thread
«260 »