Global Climate Change

Archive From The 'Tank
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Farsailer wrote:If you want to talk about reducing pollutants in the air: yes we can talk about that. But don't make up a nebulous number for a target. Rather, we should address specific occurrences on a case by case basis with desired measurable outcomes directly related to that specific case. This is very much doable. One plant at a time... bring it up to date or close it down.
And I'm fine with that. But it's not happening because you'd rather spend time saying things like "prove what an ideal climate" is, or "deny that the earth's climate has always changed." And the other side does the same thing except in reverse.

We're pouring shit into the air and the water and the earth. Anybody want to claim that it can't be having an impact on the environment?

So what's the problem? Of course...the politicians who want to use one side or the other as a hobby-horse to office or money or both. Who's coming up with these so-called targets? So they all argue with each other and nothing changes. We keep polluting and deforesting.

--A
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

More Weather Extremes Expected

Southern Europe will be gripped by fierce heat waves, drought in North Africa will be more common, and small island states face ruinous storm surges from rising seas, according to a report by UN climate scientists.

The assessment is the most comprehensive probe yet by the 194-nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) into the impact of climate change on extreme weather events.

A 20-page draft "summary for policy makers" obtained by AFP says in essence that global warming will create weather on steroids.

It also notes that these amped-up events - cyclones, heat waves, diluvian rains, drought - will hit the world unevenly.

Subject to modification, the draft summary will be examined by governments at a six-day IPCC meeting starting on Monday in the Ugandan capital of Kampala.

In the worst scenario, human settlement in some areas could be wiped out, the report warns.

"If disasters occur more frequently and/or with greater magnitude, some local areas will become increasingly marginal as places to live or in which to maintain livelihoods," it says.

"In such cases migration becomes permanent and could introduce new pressures in areas of relocation. For locations such as atolls, in some cases it is possible that many residents will have to relocate."

Three years in the making, the underlying 800-page report synthesises thousands of recent, peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Strong regional differences

The authors expresses high confidence in some findings but stresses uncertainty in others, mainly due to lack of data.

They also emphasise that the vulnerability of human settlements depends as much or more on exposure, preparedness and the capacity to respond as it does on the raw power of Nature's violent outbursts.

Average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1.0°C since pre-industrial times, with forecasts for future warming ranging between an additional 1.0°C to 5.0°C by 2100.

But these worldwide figures mask strong regional differences.

Among the findings:

- Western Europe is at risk from more frequent heat waves, in particular along the Mediterranean rim.

Record-busting temperatures in 2003 responsible for some 70 000 excess deaths across Europe may become closer to average summer peaks by as early as mid-century, the report suggests.

- The eastern and southern United States and the Caribbean will probably face hurricanes amplified by heavier rainfall and increased wind speeds.

Greater population density in exposed areas, rising property values and inadequate infrastructure will boost vulnerability, the draft warns. Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans in 2005, is seen by some scientists as an example of just such an confluence.

- For small island states, the top threat is incursion from rising seas, which not only erodes shorelines but poisons aquifers and destroys farmland as well.

Already measurable, these impacts are "very likely" - a 90% or greater probability - to become worse over time, even intolerable, the report concludes.

"In some cases, there may be a need to consider permanent evacuation," it says.

- Climate models hold out the prospect of more droughts for West Africa, raising the spectre of famine in regions where daily life is already a hand-to-mouth experience for millions.

Factor in the biggest population boom of any continent over the next half-century and the danger of food "insecurity" in Africa becomes even greater, it cautions.

- In South Asia and Southeast Asia, computer models see a doubling in the frequency of devastating rainstorms. In East Asia, exceptional heat waves will become hotter, and less exceptional.

By mid-century, temperature peaks in East Asia will be around 2.0°C more than today, and by 2100 some 4.0°C, even under scenarios that see some efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

The IPCC co-won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize after publishing a landmark "assessment report" that sparked worldwide awareness about climate change and its impacts. That document made only a brief reference to extreme weather events, leaving a gap that the panel hopes to fill with the new report.

The draft summary for policy makers will be reviewed, line-by-line, during a joint meeting of the IPCC's Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, and Working Group II, which examines impacts.

It is set to be released on Friday.
--A
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5951
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/
Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, It’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release atwww.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive

By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.

In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.

Here are the main results:

The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.

The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.

Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..

As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.

Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.

An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.

[blog continues]
Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth
Image
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Holsety »

An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.
Well, I'm not sure if the importance pales in comparison to the stellar rays, but I am pretty damn sure I read a year or two ago that trees have been growing faster recently due to increased CO2. And pretty damn sure I read something is great evidence! It seems premature from what I read of the links to say that it doesn't run both ways, to some extent.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
I would love to know how the theory is mutually supportive, i.e. how the climate, CO2, and life on Earth affect Supernovae.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Fascinating.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5951
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping ... as-1.10600
Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the status of science and its value to society. And they cannot be blamed on the usual suspects — inadequate funding, misconduct, political interference, an illiterate public. Their cause is bias, and the threat they pose goes to the heart of research.

Bias is an inescapable element of research, especially in fields such as biomedicine that strive to isolate cause–effect relations in complex systems in which relevant variables and phenomena can never be fully identified or characterized. Yet if biases were random, then multiple studies ought to converge on truth. Evidence is mounting that biases are not random. A Comment in Nature in March reported that researchers at Amgen were able to confirm the results of only six of 53 'landmark studies' in preclinical cancer research (C. G. Begley & L. M. Ellis Nature 483, 531–533; 2012). For more than a decade, and with increasing frequency, scientists and journalists have pointed out similar problems.

Early signs of trouble were appearing by the mid-1990s, when researchers began to document systematic positive bias in clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Initially these biases seemed easy to address, and in some ways they offered psychological comfort. The problem, after all, was not with science, but with the poison of the profit motive. It could be countered with strict requirements to disclose conflicts of interest and to report all clinical trials.

Yet closer examination showed that the trouble ran deeper. Science's internal controls on bias were failing, and bias and error were trending in the same direction — towards the pervasive over-selection and over-reporting of false positive results. The problem was most provocatively asserted in a now-famous 2005 paper by John Ioannidis, currently at Stanford University in California: 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' (J. P. A. Ioannidis PLoS Med. 2, e124; 2005). Evidence of systematic positive bias was turning up in research ranging from basic to clinical, and on subjects ranging from genetic disease markers to testing of traditional Chinese medical practices.

How can we explain such pervasive bias? Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction. The belief is that progress in science means the continual production of positive findings. All involved benefit from positive results, and from the appearance of progress. Scientists are rewarded both intellectually and professionally, science administrators are empowered and the public desire for a better world is answered. The lack of incentives to report negative results, replicate experiments or recognize inconsistencies, ambiguities and uncertainties is widely appreciated — but the necessary cultural change is incredibly difficult to achieve.
Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

When a corporation or government agency commissions a report they already know what results they would like to see. The report itself is merely a service being offered like any other service industry--you get what you pay for. If the results aren't what were expected, then they either bury the report or commission a new one that gives better results.

People's belief in scientific studies is akin to "white coat syndrome"--some people will believe anything they are told or will do anything they are told to do as long as there is a person in a white coat telling them what to believe or what to do, even if what they are told to do will cause harm to someone else. Just because John Doe, PhD, Professor of Paraphysics at Miskatonic University publishes a study saying "x is happening" doesn't necessarily mean that x is really happening or that it is happening the way he says it is. No, we can't always do our own research due to lack of time, proper equipment, or lack of money but when scientific study A says "x" and scientific study B says "not x" we are left with only one choice--read both studies then choose for ourselves which one we believe is correct.

The true danger of scientific studies is when those studies are used to implement political policies. How do we know for certain that the studies weren't funded solely because a politician needed a study that says "x is bad and we recommend outlawing it"? We are at the point now where we have to look at the people funding studies and try to figure out what their real objective might be.

People who believe scientific studies just becuase they are scientific studies or they think scientists wouldn't skew their results on purpose are--in my opinion--wildly naive. Scientists now are like artists in the Renaissance--they live on grants from patrons and the patron expects the "correct" results.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5951
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Nice Lovecraft reference BTW.

I think anyone who proposes that climate science has not been influenced by a political agenda is on increasingly shaky ground. That doesn't make the "consensus" wrong, either, but it does justify additional skepticism about their conclusions ipso facto.
Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Ron Burgunihilo wrote:Nice Lovecraft reference BTW.
I do what I can.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Rawedge Rim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Rawedge Rim »

that's what it is, a plot:

mglw'nafh Cthulhu R' lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn:
“One accurate measurement is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper

"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Ron Burgunihilo wrote:I think anyone who proposes that climate science has not been influenced by a political agenda is on increasingly shaky ground. That doesn't make the "consensus" wrong, either, but it does justify additional skepticism about their conclusions ipso facto.
I agree with that. The problem is that the "scepticism" is usually flat out denial, and the resulting gridlock means that we don't really even do what little we can to ameliorate things.

--A
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47251
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Ron Burgunihilo wrote:Nice Lovecraft reference BTW.
.
damn it, beat me to it.

everyone here should already know i greatly distrusts scientists, not science itself.

too many mad scientists popping up on Creature Double when i was a kid.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
Locked

Return to “Coercri”