Climate change and the point of no return

If you read my post you’d notice I linked to that same Argo site, which gives a value of 0.06°C. You quoted the more precise value of 0.065 °C, which apparently comes from the blogs I mentioned and not your link. So now you are not just ignoring what you were answering - that total energy matters to surface temperatures - but seemingly trying to conceal your actual sources. Classy.

Edit: I’d also like to point out that same NOAA site mentions salinity changes suggesting a several percent change to the hydrological cycle, driven by those same surface temperatures. Yet somehow you only thought to consider the bulk oceanic temperature, even after we mentioned the surface is why the energy change matters?

1 Like

Right: you don’t care about the facts – the implications of which you obviously aren’t qualified to discuss; you want to know what popular dogma I must have subscribed to to dare to impose an inconvenient fact on this theological debate.

I don’t read climate blogs, or “climate skeptic” blogs. IAmA physicist by training and read physics blogs, one of which had an analysis of this data a few days ago, and originated that number.

Edit: it was this one (I’m not going to fish out the article – you’ll have to scroll)

Who’s talking about what life cares about? The system cares about the total energy of the system… that’s part of the definition of a system. Life doesn’t have to care about the energy in order to be impacted by the results of energy on a system.

Comparing either of those to the conclusions of scientists who study climate is False Equivalence, among other things.

2 Likes

The one I suggested you likely got your value from was the reference frame, which mostly talks about physics, but self-described as “from a conservative viewpoint” and has climate as one of its main topics. Its analysis is what I explained above as generally agreeing with NOAA on the value, but entirely dishonest in the way it pretends it’s too small to matter.

Is that not the one you are referring to? Because it sure seems like you have taken its version as a given, and ignored even the rest of the NOAA page you just pointed to as the source of the data, which is rather poor behavior from someone who claims to be interested in facts and to be qualified to discuss them. Is preferring honesty called theology now?

Edit: Since this was written, xgkick has cited his actual source. It is indeed the reference frame, and you don’t actually have to fish out the article, since I had already linked to it before he claimed his data was directly from NOAA and not climate skeptic blogs.

1 Like

Look: 99% of voters favor democracy over anarchy, and 99.9% of Creation Scientists believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve. Oh, and most water is wet.

Comparing climate scientists to creationists (who aren’t scientists, for one thing) is stunningly ludicrous, insulting to said real scientists and a novice mistake for someone like you who claims to be speaking from authority.

For the record: I don’t deny anthropogenic global warming.

Bully for you. But, I imagine you’re also a libertarian, climate change impact denier, amirite? Be honest.

IAmA physicist by training and read physics blogs

So, you’re not a climate scientist who is an expert in climate science. Not that it matters, right? Let’s leave climate science up to creationist “scientists” or whomever deems themselves an expert in climate science without them going through the actual rigors of being an actual climate scientist. Screw it.

If you’re so interested in climate science, why not become an actual climate scientist? Or is this just a hobby of yours that somehow qualifies you to be an expert who trumps seasoned climate scientists? Did other hobbyists who trump experts in their field peer review your hobby studies you haven’t presented?

Maybe it’s time you consulted with 97% of the world’s climate scientists? Ya know, experts in their field? Nevermind, that’s ludicrous… consensus of climate scientists on climate science means as little as creationism in your batty world.

the implications of which you obviously aren’t qualified to discuss;

The irony of you saying that to @chenille escapes you, doesn’t it? You’re the one who needn’t be a climate scientist to dismiss consensus of 97% of all climate scientists as trivial along with comparing them to creationists. What exactly are your qualifications again? You’ve read some blogs?

2 Likes

Can we just have one canonical climate change topic and just refer everyone there? Man. The repetition is oppressive. (Not blaming anyone in particular, I’m just saying, we end up having the same discussions over and over in every one of these.)

1 Like

I know, it’s frustrating, and I’m sorry for my contribution to dragging these out. I generally like BoingBoing, and I hate to see these topics getting drenched in the same specious arguments about how everyone who has worked in the field must be a fool or villain, because some lie or other, again and again.

My not-quite-thought-out-hope was that for at least the usual suspects, things could be hashed out in detail once or twice, and then we could just link back to it, like here. It seems that is not going to help, though, if people will ignore what has been covered on the same topic thread.

I’d still like, though, to be able to look at climate-related posts by Rob, Cory, Maggie, etc. on their own terms, instead of leaving the stream of dishonesty unchallenged or giving up the hope of discussing new topics entirely because of it. You’re familiar with the mechanics of maintaining communities; is there no way moderation can help?

2 Likes

Luboš Motl is, I don’t know what you call it, a reverse weather vane for me. Wrong on climate, wrong on feminism, wrong on string theory’s prospects. Occasionally such people will write something you at first seem to agree with, which forces you to really re-examine that assumed belief without the defensiveness that straightforward opposition induces.

Actually I’m leaning toward just not allowing comments at all on climate change articles. It is up to @beschizza and @Felton et al though, not me.

I don’t really see a way forward on climate change articles if you’re going to “allow” both sides to have their say on the matter.

I guess you could have a FAQ style post that you refer everyone to, “if you’re going to say climate change is invalid, here are some links to study.” But at that point it’s the same as closing the topic and having that pointer to links (or one of the many prior climate change discussions) as the notification in the closed topic.

1 Like

Both sides need to be allowed to present their view points. And should be able to do so in an adult manner. If they can’t, then comments will be deleted. Then if it continues some will find out what a Don’t Push Your Luck Dragon is all about.

4 Likes

(Data through 2011; still relevant)

6 Likes

So where are the climate scientists getting driven around in Mercedes with both arms around models?

The climate scientists – people specializing in the “glamorous” and “high-paying” confluence of earth science and statistics – make a decent middle wage salary, probably about on par with what most research scientists who aren’t also medical doctors make. (So about the same salary as people who get their kicks discovering new and exciting species of snails.)

Executives at oil and chemical companies of the sort who fund the sources of “skepticism” – think tanks like Cato, for example – are paid much better.

So go ahead and ask “cui bono?”. If you were willing to answer it honestly you’d be getting a much different answer than what you suggest here.

4 Likes

You do realize that the great oxygenation event was accompanied by one of the most massive mass-extinctions in the history of the planet?

Puts your “all this stuff has happened before” “argument” into some perspective. This stuff hasn’t happened before in, let’s say, the last 10,000 years. You know, the years in which agriculture was invented and the global human population ballooned from somewhere on the order of 100,000 to 7 freaking billion?

No argument that the planet is going to do what it’s going to do. But it would be nice to avoid the inevitable violence, terror, and cruelty that would be inevitably involved if potable water or food ran short of being able to support such a high global population of human beings if this is at all possible.

Which I doubt it is thanks in no small part to folks like yourself who see a tautology and think to themselves “brilliant argument!”

3 Likes

Also, why do all the astroturfers have self-important superhero names like “Harvey Paradox” or “Carlos Danger”? Is it part of some personality disorder or just the result of a common algorithm for generating user accounts?

2 Likes

Well, it’s not the software, I can tell you that.

You’ll have to ask Anthony Weiner about “Carlos Danger.” Maybe “Harvey Paradox” is some other Congressman.

That’s a true, fantastic and funny animation. Thanks for posting it. F’n saved.

I suppose the $176 billion carbon exchange industry, an industry championed by Enron of all companies, is full of VW driving paupers?

Btw. I see no need to question your honesty or your screen name.

I didn’t see you complaining about the bankers who run and trade on the carbon exchanges. I saw you complain about those greedy earth scientist statisticians. Which is it? I don’t know that climate scientists are clamoring for a carbon exchange industry – I’m pretty sure most of them just advocate for a carbon tax. Can you find me even one example of a climate scientist making huge bucks in the carbon offset market?

http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/scientists-and-economists/

Sorry, bud, but I always find it questionable when people talk about the greed of those grasping earth scientists, cite the value of the carbon offset market in which they probably don’t really participate in the first place, and ignore the fact that the value of the oil industry is measured in trillions.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.