-
> 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
-
-
@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!
-
@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
link ... it's also available in nZ
-
-
@booboo said in Climate Change Thread #3:
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.
-
comments are always amusing
I know this is a couple of years old....
-
@taniwharugby While on the Antarctic - there is some good news (and we may need a bit less sunblock in NZ).
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).
-
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.
-
@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.
Climate Change