Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues



  • Okay, bear with me.....I think the last one got locked (partly) because I started it with an article about a scientist rinsing an Australian senator. While amusing, this was probably an unnecessarily confrontational angle that was never likely to foster any decent discussion. So am keen to try again:

    This XKCD comic is doing the rounds on social and mainstream media. Rather than getting into the mess of alarmism/denial etc, it simply presents the current sum of human knowledge about the average global temperature throughout history, and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. It also does it in an entertaining and informative way, hence why it's getting such wide circulation.

    The biggest takeaway for me is that you often get people on both sides of the debate saying "temperature changes are natural and have happened all throughout the history of the earth". This is true, but context is VERY important. This illustrates the context beautifully. Also, I get a chance to try out embedding with the fancy new forum software 😃

    (Mods, re copyright etc, from the author: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 2.5 License. This means you're free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them).")

    link text

    alt text



  • It's awesome to see this on my tablet and scroll through. Was shit on the phone via IFLS earlier today



  • Interesting stuff but I give this thread 12 hours before it's Wingered. He's currently busy explaining how fire can't melt steel on planet rugby at the moment.

    Promise I won't point out the thread to him this time.



  • That was great.

    XKCD is one of the best educational sites on the net. Its a bit surreal, but it is, same way that the TV show at the cutting edge of explaining the core cultural & social issues facing the US in particular & the west in general is South Park.

    We live in fucked up times.

    I think we are probably movingh on from "Global warming isn't happening" to "Ok it is, but its good!". In Australia they just need 20 more years to "nothing bad happening!" till they've sold all their coal. That'll be good too when the whole country is almost continuously either on fire or flooded.



  • @jegga said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    Interesting stuff but I give this thread 12 hours before it's Wingered. He's currently busy explaining how fire can't melt steel on planet rugby at the moment.

    Promise I won't point out the thread to him this time.

    I thought you were joking, but then I went over to PR and read the 9/11 thread, and you are actually not. Wow.



  • @TeWaio said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    @jegga said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    Interesting stuff but I give this thread 12 hours before it's Wingered. He's currently busy explaining how fire can't melt steel on planet rugby at the moment.

    Promise I won't point out the thread to him this time.

    I thought you were joking, but then I went over to PR and read the 9/11 thread, and you are actually not. Wow.

    I read it. Fire can't melt steel! But he doesn't know what happened, he's on the fence with this one...



  • I liked the effect of that but the only question i have is how do they know there wasn't any spikes like we are having now? It seems to be in 500 year lots rahter than 5 year lots showing our current spike



  • @Hooroo said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    I liked the effect of that but the only question i have is how do they know there wasn't any spikes like we are having now? It seems to be in 500 year lots rahter than 5 year lots showing our current spike

    And that is where the side against climate change pitch their tent - it is really difficult to get 100% accurate temperature records before thermometers were invented 🙂

    Same way they say "WHY DID NOAA / NASA ADJUST THAT DATA! MUST ALL BE FAKED!" and there are several articles covering why that is. Basically if you want consistent temperature readings, you need to create consistent conditions. If the conditions surrounding a given weather station change, you have to account for that and look to recalibrate or relocate the weather station (e.g. it is in a rural area that gets urbanised).

    Back to the historical data: They use various processes - tree rings, geological samples, historical events (where noted), and try to tie it all together. That's why you can't go year-to-year and need to put it down to millennia/centuries.

    As with climate science itself, it comes down to lots of scientists agreeing with each other, which doesn't often happen if the science is dodgy.



  • I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.



  • I've never really got involved in the other threads, but why did everything go wrong so they had to be shut down? It's basically a debate of scientists vs semi-scientists isn't it?

    Above graph is interesting, agree with @hooroo that it needs to be reduced in scope so can see intra-500 year movements.



  • > I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
    

    The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.



  • @MajorRage said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    I've never really got involved in the other threads, but why did everything go wrong so they had to be shut down? It's basically a debate of scientists vs semi-scientists isn't it?

    Well, it depends how you'd define "scientist". Or "semi" 😉

    But yes.



  • @Chris-B. said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    > I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
    

    The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.

    Nice! Was just fast scrolling to watch the line move 🙂



  • alt text



  • @TeWaio He's not even the most ludicrous poster on that thread. DAC has consistently set new standards for stupidity and lack of self awareness over the years he's been embarrassing himself there.



  • @MajorRage said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    I've never really got involved in the other threads, but why did everything go wrong so they had to be shut down? It's basically a debate of scientists vs semi-scientists isn't it?

    Not really. Climate change is a debate is typically (as on here) between literally every scientist on the planet who is remotely qualified saying its happening & we are the cause, and web mongs who have "read the data" saying its a lie. No one with any shred of credability is in the denial group. Literally no one. Post a denier (as Winger did repeatedly) and I can pull his credability apart with about 5 minutes on google.

    In the US the same guys who say its not happening are saying the earth is 6000 years old.

    Thats what happens here too. You get people posting researched articles & then a couple of posters posting a blog to refute.

    Same with any conspiarcy theory - moon landings, 9/11, elivis lives

    And then there is the idea that everyones ideas are equally valid. Even when they are wrong. I think its a bit of bleed from Sports. If I say Cane is far better than Savea, thats really just my (and Hansens) opinion. So saying "thats wrong! my opinion is equally valid! Ardie rules!" is indeed equally valid. But thats not the case on shit like this, but people think it is. Its an issue from society too, where we learn everyones opinion is equally valid, even when they are retards. Once again, thank you South Park for fighting that

    @Chris-B. said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    > I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
    

    The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.

    Yep - the key bit is "they get smootheed - but only if they are small enough or brief enough"



  • @Chris-B. said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    > I'm not on that brigade and I understand that it has to be averages but there could have just as easily been an event like the last twenty years within any of those 500 year period lots but is lost within averages.
    

    The graphic notes that itself at 16000 BCE.

    Yep, noted, with references, showing what is possible and what is unlikely. Decent scientific rigor for a web comic!

    0_1473845018311_upload-5cccdba1-f425-4794-bfb3-ceaa7243a882



  • @TeWaio XKCD are bloody good at staying pretty rigorous.

    For kids, check out the book 'thing explainer'. Uses only the 1000 most used words to explain complicated things for kids. Great fun



  • @nzzp said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    @TeWaio XKCD are bloody good at staying pretty rigorous.

    For kids, check out the book 'thing explainer'. Uses only the 1000 most used words to explain complicated things for kids. Great fun

    https://www.amazon.com/Thing-Explainer-Complicated-Stuff-Simple/dp/0544668251

    link ... it's also available in nZ









  • @booboo said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07142ls

    I interesting listen. It reinforces a lot of what the other video says though. There clearly is not a consensus on the level of mans effect on climate change.





  • @taniwharugby While on the Antarctic - there is some good news (and we may need a bit less sunblock in NZ).

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/antarctic-ozone-hole-repairs-itself-8319767

    It shows that human activity does have an impact on things and that we can change our ways to help the planet (and ourselves).



  • Yeah I remember ozone layer and CFCs being the thing when I was a kid. Scientists said "Hey this shit is bad" and people said "alright we'll stop it" and now we have an outcome.

    Big difference between then and now - that was a few chemicals we had to find alternatives for, that we'd not really been using for a long period of time.

    Climate change is an energy system we have to remake, that we've been using for centuries.



  • @NTA Strangely the increased number / violence of storms around the world will be generating more ozone, I would assume anyway. I'm no expert. So you lose one, you win one, maybe?

    Could always tell when flying around thunderstorms that there was lightning about ( the distinct smell of ozone).



  • @Snowy I just googled ozone climate change and there are a bunch of people now wondering whether there is a connection, by the looks.



  • Sorry to dredge this one up again but I've recently become friends with an actual climate scientist which has proven surprisingly fascinating. We've only had a couple discussions over beers (well mostly me on the beers). He's from China which is fascinating on its own. Having now started giving a tiny bit more credence to the possibility that climate change may not be manmade or more likely that programs like the Paris accord might just be a gargantuan waste of money that could be put to better environmental solutions, I naturally had to ask him his thoughts. Obviously since 97% of scientists apparently agree I expected to be rightfully put in my place...except I wasn't.

    I will get more specifics later on but the gist of the chats we have had is that 'yes' climate is warming. But according to all analysis he cannot say with any confidence that this is caused by man. He says with the one set of results he can proove both the manmade climate change theory as well as disprove it depending on how they want to present it. The complexities are so vast you cannot get close to getting a truthful answer and if anything the more they have discovered the more they have found they can't explain. He also says trying to monetise CO2 emmisions is just stupid. This guy is on a whole level of intelligence above mine so I need a lot of dumbing down to try and follow him properly and no beer does not aid that process.


  • Banned

    @Rembrandt said in Climate Change Thread #3:

    Sorry to dredge this one up again but I've recently become friends with an actual climate scientist which has proven surprisingly fascinating. We've only had a couple discussions over beers (well mostly me on the beers). He's from China which is fascinating on its own. Having now started giving a tiny bit more credence to the possibility that climate change may not be manmade or more likely that programs like the Paris accord might just be a gargantuan waste of money that could be put to better environmental solutions, I naturally had to ask him his thoughts. Obviously since 97% of scientists apparently agree I expected to be rightfully put in my place...except I wasn't.

    I will get more specifics later on but the gist of the chats we have had is that 'yes' climate is warming. But according to all analysis he cannot say with any confidence that this is caused by man. He says with the one set of results he can proove both the manmade climate change theory as well as disprove it depending on how they want to present it. The complexities are so vast you cannot get close to getting a truthful answer and if anything the more they have discovered the more they have found they can't explain. He also says trying to monetise CO2 emmisions is just stupid. This guy is on a whole level of intelligence above mine so I need a lot of dumbing down to try and follow him properly and no beer does not aid that process.

    That has been my experience talking to scientists about it. One simply said "we just don't fucking know".

    This is why it's infuriating when people try to equate global warming skepticism with being an antivaccer. It's complete bullshit. As is the disgusting use of the word "denier" to link skeptics to holocaust deniers.



  • Looks like Germany can't reduce it's CO2 emissions due to reliance on coal. Guess who has championed the coal industry her entire political career, and eliminated their nuclear power industry on a whim? Merkel.

    Imgur

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-arent-renewables-decreasing-germanys-carbon-emissions/#34e142ad68e1



  • Thought that rather than start a new topic I'd modify this one. This post is kind of related anyway but I'm sure we're all tree hugging greenies deep down and need a place to discuss ways to save our planet ...

    Saw this column in stuff which expressed some of my gut feelings about how banning of plastic shopping bags is counter productive. But the dude provides some additional numbers to back it up.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/102493072/budget-buster-my-secret-love--supermarket-plastic-bags


  • Banned

    @booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

    Thought that rather than start a new topic I'd modify this one. This post is kind of related anyway but I'm sure we're all tree hugging greenies deep down and need a place to discuss ways to save our planet ...

    Saw this column in stuff which expressed some of my gut feelings about how banning of plastic shopping bags is counter productive. But the dude provides some additional numbers to back it up.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/102493072/budget-buster-my-secret-love--supermarket-plastic-bags

    Great post.

    I particularly liked the sarcastic line about how it's not important to make a difference, just appear to be making a difference.

    That could be said to be the motto of the entire political and activist class.



  • @booboo Not often you read something you agree with 100%, but that is it for me.

    What people don't understand is plastic bags are (almost) free because the feedstock they're made from is what's left over after we make transport fuels. One barrel of oil is split up into the things with the highest demand: petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, and the sludge left over is made into plastic bags, or put on roads. The greenie argument that we're turning oil into plastic bags then throwing them away isn't the environmental disaster its made out to be.



  • @tewaio yeah, I discovered this a few years back too - although the colossal piles of plastic floating around the ocean is certainly a byproducts of it.

    Same argument goes for shipping and the heavy fuel oil they burn. I've never touched it, but apparently it's almost like tar.



  • it's just those irresponsible cnuts who litter...those bags have so many uses3



  • @majorrage Yep, that's why shipping stuff is cheap, plastic bags are cheap, candles are cheap, and (per sq metre) road surfacing is cheap. It's all making use of the abundant byproducts of refining.

    I saw an ad on Facebook the other day that asked "why don't we use recycled plastic rather than digging up oil to surface our roads?". It's quite amazing to get that many wrong statements in one sentence.



  • @taniwharugby said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

    it's just those irresponsible cnuts who litter...those bags have so many uses3

    They do and I originally missed them when Canberra banned them, but you don't see as many lying around as litter. @MajorRage 's point is also valid; the sea is littered with plastic because people are lazy.



  • I got sent this article by a greenie family member recently. It's pretty doom and gloom so no doubt plenty of points worth debating in there, but the thing that stood out to me was him saying there is absolutely no way renewable energy can replicate what the fossil fuels do, despite so many left wing leaders claiming it to be the solution to our woes if we just invested more.

    Interested to get other more knowledgeable Ferners thoughts on this.

    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-26/six-myths-about-climate-change-that-liberals-rarely-question/


  • Banned

    @No-Quarter Quarter said:

    I got sent this article by a greenie family member recently. It's pretty doom and gloom so no doubt plenty of points worth debating in there, but the thing that stood out to me was him saying there is absolutely no way renewable energy can replicate what the fossil fuels do, despite so many left wing leaders claiming it to be the solution to our woes if we just invested more.

    Interested to get other more knowledgeable Ferners thoughts on this.

    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-26/six-myths-about-climate-change-that-liberals-rarely-question/

    This has been known for ages. Just ask anyone who actually works in energy. It's a ridiculously expensive joke.


Log in to reply