Asian pollution causing global cooling

[schneiderguy]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

I'm glad the Chinese have found a solution to our global warming problem :thumbsup:

 

[blackangst1]

The ends justify the means?

 

[Doppel]

LOL. As I've thought for a long time, we as a species are impacting the environment but in ways we cannot possibly quantify (despite trying). We have no idea how much we are warming or cooling the earth. Moreover, we don't even know if warming it is a bad thing (maybe it's not?). And this says the sh*t from chinese smoke stacks is countering CO2. Maybe it really is, maybe it isn't. The arrogance will continue, though, as people bring up impossibly specific (and inaccurate) charts predicting things that will never happen as predicted.

 

[blackangst1]

LOL. As I've thought for a long time, we as a species are impacting the environment but in ways we cannot possibly quantify (despite trying). We have no idea how much we are warming or cooling the earth. Moreover, we don't even know if warming it is a bad thing (maybe it's not?). And this says the sh*t from chinese smoke stacks is countering CO2. Maybe it really is, maybe it isn't. The arrogance will continue, though, as people bring up impossibly specific (and inaccurate) charts predicting things that will never happen as predicted.

/thread :thumbsup:

 

[JSt0rm]

Its because of particles blocking out the sun and some other crap. The co2 damage is still pumpin out.

 

[gotsmack]

Funny how the article title makes it sound like stopping global warming is a bad thing.

 

[zinfamous]

LOL. As I've thought for a long time, we as a species are impacting the environment but in ways we cannot possibly quantify (despite trying). We have no idea how much we are warming or cooling the earth. Moreover, we don't even know if warming it is a bad thing (maybe it's not?). And this says the sh*t from chinese smoke stacks is countering CO2. Maybe it really is, maybe it isn't. The arrogance will continue, though, as people bring up impossibly specific (and inaccurate) charts predicting things that will never happen as predicted.

eh, the international consensus regarding the changes in the environment is quite universal.

simply saying that "scientists don't agree!" is not only an outright lie, and failure to actually read the actual reports for yourself, but a ridiculously trite dismissal of something that you probably have no hope of understanding.

It's funny, people like to selectively accept fields for their own purposes--what one gains through one field of science is perfectly acceptable, yet convince a hoard of fearful, paranoid fools that another field is lying to you and lie to them about how the scientists are confused, they'll just eat it up.

It would be hilarious if that kind of mentality weren't so god damn damaging.

 

[matt0611]

LOL. As I've thought for a long time, we as a species are impacting the environment but in ways we cannot possibly quantify (despite trying). We have no idea how much we are warming or cooling the earth. Moreover, we don't even know if warming it is a bad thing (maybe it's not?). And this says the sh*t from chinese smoke stacks is countering CO2. Maybe it really is, maybe it isn't. The arrogance will continue, though, as people bring up impossibly specific (and inaccurate) charts predicting things that will never happen as predicted.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

 

[Schadenfroh]

One kind of pollution is negating a negative effect of another kind of pollution, oh the irony...

 

[glenn1]

eh, the international consensus regarding the changes in the environment is quite universal.

simply saying that "scientists don't agree!" is not only an outright lie, and failure to actually read the actual reports for yourself, but a ridiculously trite dismissal of something that you probably have no hope of understanding.

It's funny, people like to selectively accept fields for their own purposes--what one gains through one field of science is perfectly acceptable, yet convince a hoard of fearful, paranoid fools that another field is lying to you and lie to them about how the scientists are confused, they'll just eat it up.

It would be hilarious if that kind of mentality weren't so god damn damaging.

1. The scientific method is not based on consensus, so using an appeal to authority based upon it is a bogus argument - a point of "quite universal" agreement among scientists can still be 100% wrong.
2. One can accept that the scientific consensus about CO2 warming is correct, and yet still argue that climate variation due to natural and/or cyclical causes is a bigger driver in any climate change.
3. One can accept that man-made climate change is real, and still argue that it's more cost-effective to mitigate rather than precipitously impose massive changes in our economies to reduce CO2 emissions; or that the funds would be better used for other purposes (reducing hunger, etc).

 

[Doppel]

eh, the international consensus regarding the changes in the environment is quite universal.

simply saying that "scientists don't agree!" is not only an outright lie, and failure to actually read the actual reports for yourself, but a ridiculously trite dismissal of something that you probably have no hope of understanding.

It's funny, people like to selectively accept fields for their own purposes--what one gains through one field of science is perfectly acceptable, yet convince a hoard of fearful, paranoid fools that another field is lying to you and lie to them about how the scientists are confused, they'll just eat it up.

It would be hilarious if that kind of mentality weren't so god damn damaging.

If I really have no hope of understanding, can I continue with the trite dismissals or must I first agree that they're trite, that you're right, despite me lacking the cognition to comprehend?

No matter how many times you say things like "international consensus" and "universal", it won't be so. The closest thing I've seen to a scientific consensus is that the world is warming. Beyond that there is no consensus on how quickly and whether it's even bad (actually most say it is, but not for reasons really given, more like "well, of course it's bad, just trust us"). The science on this is actually very immature and extremely inaccurate. Feel free to counter by finding me an at-the-time generally agreed upon prediction from 10-20 years ago and plotting its numbers against what actually happened.

 

[zinfamous]

1. The scientific method is not based on consensus, so using an appeal to authority based upon it is a bogus argument - a point of "quite universal" agreement among scientists can still be 100% wrong.
2. One can accept that the scientific consensus about CO2 warming is correct, and yet still argue that climate variation due to natural and/or cyclical causes is a bigger driver in any climate change.
3. One can accept that man-made climate change is real, and still argue that it's more cost-effective to mitigate rather than precipitously impose massive changes in our economies to reduce CO2 emissions; or that the funds would be better used for other purposes (reducing hunger, etc).

see, these are the relevant arguments, I think.

Consensus among all national organizations, including the AAAS and NSA among other international boards, is that CO2 is the leading factor in climate change, and that human contributions are very significant, if not the most significant source.

The debate, as you suggest, really concerns what to do about it. What can we do about it and can we do anything about it? Where should we place our attention and how should we expend our resources? Very relevant questions.

But creating lies that there is no consensus among the people charged with providing this data is ridiculous and frankly, infuriating.


I agree that appeal to authority is it's own fallacy, but I'd rather appeal to the primary source--authority; the mouths of those who produce the data--rather than the talking heads that filter this data through their own uninformed biases and agendas.

Why is one willing to trust Glenn Beck or Rush over the NSA and all other international institutions that remain 100% agreed on the issue?

it makes no fucking sense. Then again, these are the same people willing to exchange their savings for gold.

Rejection of legitimate authority is not somehow more valid than appeal to authority, is it?

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

I mean, look at the type of ridiculous arguments that the deniars try to make. It's hilarious--call the climate scientists "fear mongerers" while dispensing their own form of distrustful fear-mongering!

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080003

oh shit, the horse's mouth. don't expect deniers and those without any climate science, let alone science background to dare come near this stuff.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

[zinfamous]

I would guess that if you chart the percentage of people who deny climate change and generally distrust science, with their opinions on the scientific evidence that firmly supports the fact of evolution, you'd find a rather compelling and non-surprisng correlation.
:hmm:

are the two issues related? no--but it would tell you something about the value of an individual's opinion on science, and grasp of solid evidence and ability to form an informed argument on general scientific issues.

 

[shira]

I would guess that if you chart the percentage of people who deny climate change and generally distrust science, with their opinions on the scientific evidence that firmly supports the fact of evolution, you'd find a rather compelling and non-surprisng correlation.
:hmm:

are the two issues related? no--but it would tell you something about the value of an individual's opinion on science, and grasp of solid evidence and ability to form an informed argument on general scientific issues.

Unfortunately, it's well established that facts and rational discourse typically don't change minds; arguments - however illogical and dishonest - that provoke an emotional response are what change minds.

 

[CycloWizard]

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

This is part of the problem. We've been hearing how each of these years was the hottest on record for some time now as climate change publications are accepted without waiting for appropriate regression analysis. Half-cooked studies are then misinterpreted by journalists and politicians with a result that an arbitrarily-selected subset of data can be used to tell whatever story one chooses. Years down the line, when those data are put in context of the entire set, they can be understood for what they are. That doesn't mean the fundamental mechanisms aren't well understood - only that it's little wonder the general public can't understand or follow what's going on when they hear a bunch of demagogues shouting their viewpoints from a pulpit.

 

[Monster_Munch]

3. One can accept that man-made climate change is real, and still argue that it's more cost-effective to mitigate rather than precipitously impose massive changes in our economies to reduce CO2 emissions; or that the funds would be better used for other purposes (reducing hunger, etc).

Very true. Reduction of CO2 is the only real long term strategy we have, but there might be other things we can do in the short term. I've heard people talk about spraying some kind of chemical into the sky or even building a giant sun filter in orbit around the Earth to reduce the amount of sunlight we have to deal with.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Conclusion; no one knows what the fuck they are talking about.

Everyone can go to hell and die.

 

[WelshBloke]

One kind of pollution is negating a negative effect of another kind of pollution, oh the irony...

Its only negating it in the way that sticking your right hand into a fire negates the frostbite in your left.

 

[Atreus21]

From what source do man-made global warming proponents claim a scientific consensus? Can I get a link?

 

[piasabird]

I like how you post that people that doubt global warming have a distrust of all science. Are all liberals this idiotic? Or are all liberals hate mongers? Can you not see a correlation showing that funds are distributed to scientest and researches based on the results before the research is even done?

Where is the proof that what money is being spent will improve the environment? Why is it I believe that global warming will just make a few rich scientist and researchers?

Maybe we should knock all the buildings down in new york city, plant trees and give the land back to the original American Native People.

 

[Jaskalas]

From what source do man-made global warming proponents claim a scientific consensus? Can I get a link?

I've a link for you.

The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

 

[monovillage]

You can see an interesting post on this paper in Dr. Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an-explanation-for-lack-of-warming-since-1998/#more-3966
Here's part of her response.

"JC comments: Their argument is totally unconvincing to me. However, the link between flat/cooling global temperature and increased coal burning in China is certainly an interesting argument from a political perspective. The scientific motivation for this article seems to be that that scientists understand the evolution of global temperature forcing and that the answer is forced variability (not natural internal variability), and this explanation of the recent lack of warming supports a similar argument for the cooling between 1940 and 1970. The political consequence of this article seems to be that the simplest solution to global warming is for the Chinese to burn more coal, which they intend to do anyways.

And finally, with the civil heretic discussion fresh in my mind, I checked the personal web pages of each of the co-authors: Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann (not Michael E. Mann, of hockeystick fame), and James H. Stock. These authors (individually and collectively) apparently know a heck of a lot less about atmospheric aerosols (i.e. pretty much nothing) than Freeman Dyson knows about climate change. The authors don’t seem to know much about attribution, either.

This article is listed as a PNAS direct submission, which means that it gets the more rigorous review treatment by the PNAS editors. I would certainly be interested in knowing who reviewed this paper. I suspect that this paper will be criticized from both sides of the AGW debate."

 

[Jaskalas]

eh, the international consensus regarding the changes in the environment is quite universal.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (PDF)http://traffic.libsyn.com/rbushway/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

 

[monovillage]

Naomi Oreskes? Union of Concerned Scientists? Media Matters? John Cook? You've got to be kidding Zin to list this bunch of political clowns in a scientific discussion.

 

[Atreus21]

I've a link for you.

I was aware of that debunked 97% figure. I was hoping the MMGW proponents had something more convincing.