4 ms·

The political machine has been working on The Great Climate Freakout for a while now. But there's a lot of missing data. For example, there is no data whatsoeve

The political machine has been working on The Great Climate Freakout for a while now. But there's a lot of missing data. For example, there is no data whatsoever about how much heat is poured out by most of the oceans' volcanic ridges, and only 1-2 years of data for the Juan de Fuca ridge. We also have no idea how the Sun's output cycles over thousands of years. When a person has no data, they have to make assumptions. Good science is not based on assumptions. The climate brouhaha is a good example of confirmation bias/echo chamber effects: "But the problem with this, otherwise natural course of action, is that it ends up creating an echo chamber of like minds, and their zombies. It ends up killing, at least within that network, dissenting views. Ultimately, what will be accepted as truth within that small network may not necessarily be the plain truth, but a relative truth. For those living within the confines of the echo chamber however, this relative truth, which to some may even be a plain lie, will be the unvarnished truth. That, is called confirmation bias. And that, is what led to that fan protest, which made some Arsenal fans the laughing stock of the world on a frosty spring day in 2016." - Echo chambers and confirmation bias, https://medium.com/@chxta/echo-chambers-and-confirmation-bias-b4864525d2f6#.yyqdw1c24 https://medium.com/@chxta/echo-chambers-and-confirmation-bia... It's like how Ancel Keys engineered The Great Saturated Fat Freakout in the 1950's. There was no basis to his claims that dietary saturated fat was a great villain that needed to be avoided at all costs, but the Machine picked up his theory and ran with it. Saturated fats have now been vindicated of the charges leveled against them, but most of the 'experts' are still confused.

maxerickson 10y ago
It would be well understood if underwater volcanoes were substantially heating the oceans. I don't know where to look for data, but there must be some people who have measured the temperature gradients around them. If they were heating the oceans in a meaningful way compared to the sun, such a gradient would be apparent at tens and hundreds of kilometers.
- teslabox 10y ago
  > If they were heating the oceans in a meaningful way compared to the sun, such a gradient would be apparent at tens and hundreds of kilometers. I think the El Niño / La Niña oscillation is probably caused by cycles in underwater volcanic activity. Wikipedia says "Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study."
abstractbeliefs 10y ago
So, why are these volcanic ridges causing melt now, rather than 300 years ago? While you're right that there are many variables we haven't considered, and that correlation is not causation, there certainly does seem to be a strong causal link between industrialisation and climate change. Of course, we could be wrong, and implement all these climate change laws that do nothing to stop ice melt, but if that's the case, what's the downside? We get clean air, more sustainable power sources, etc. There's very little reason not to push for better climate regulations.
- teslabox 10y ago
  > [...] but if that's the case, what's the downside? We get clean air, more sustainable power sources, etc. There's very little reason not to push for better climate regulations. Efforts should be entirely focused on making "carbon" energy sources obsolete. Making energy more expensive for poor people is a counter-productive endeavor, and doesn't fix the problem. Improved super-capacitors and breakthrough cheap energy storage technologies would be good enough to begin to phase out the current energy status-quo. Eventually someone will certainly come up with a breakthrough technology that will destroy the current energy paradigm.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
CO2 is something we can control. If it isn't the whole answer, then we're screwed anyway. But doing nothing is totally irresponsible. Too much on the line, right?
- teslabox 10y ago
  The Freakout is engineered to get people to support taxes on "carbon". It would be much more effective to ignore the existing industries and work on making them obsolete. Firefly Energy [1] came up with a good-enough Lead Acid battery - "the energy of NiMH, for the cost of lead", fully recyclable with existing infrastructure, etc. Their batteries would have been perfectly useful for low-range electric vehicles like Postal delivery trucks (20-miles/day) and home energy storage (solar panels, shifting power use to off-peak, etc). But they ramped up for production in the midst of the housing collapse (2006-ish?), and ran out of money. The government only gave money to "advanced chemistry" battery technologies. Firefly Energy had to declare bankruptcy, last I read an Indian company bought the IP... and it's gone nowhere. [1] http://fireflyenergy.com/ http://fireflyenergy.com/ > CO2 is something we can control. If it isn't the whole answer, then we're screwed anyway. A friend has told me of the 'Maunder minimum' [2] phenomenon, and that our Sun might be preparing to reduce its output for 30-45 years. If that happens, all efforts to suppress CO2 will be for naught. It is better to focus on the desired outcome than on the present problem. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
  - triplesec 10y ago
    You really need to read and understan this site, rather than quoting denialist fantasies. A solar minimum would make no meaningful difference to what we've done http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-d... Edit OTOH I dp appreciate your mentioning various usful technologies like these batteries, but they are drops in the ocean so far. I hope they help, but they need to be on top of a fast reduction in carbon outfput, and given this year's figures we may be in for a terribly bumpy ride anyway.

maxerickson 10y ago

It would be well understood if underwater volcanoes were substantially heating the oceans. I don't know where to look for data, but there must be some people who have measured the temperature gradients around them. If they were heating the oceans in a meaningful way compared to the sun, such a gradient would be apparent at tens and hundreds of kilometers.

teslabox 10y ago
> If they were heating the oceans in a meaningful way compared to the sun, such a gradient would be apparent at tens and hundreds of kilometers. I think the El Niño / La Niña oscillation is probably caused by cycles in underwater volcanic activity. Wikipedia says "Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study."

abstractbeliefs 10y ago

So, why are these volcanic ridges causing melt now, rather than 300 years ago? While you're right that there are many variables we haven't considered, and that correlation is not causation, there certainly does seem to be a strong causal link between industrialisation and climate change. Of course, we could be wrong, and implement all these climate change laws that do nothing to stop ice melt, but if that's the case, what's the downside? We get clean air, more sustainable power sources, etc. There's very little reason not to push for better climate regulations.

teslabox 10y ago
> [...] but if that's the case, what's the downside? We get clean air, more sustainable power sources, etc. There's very little reason not to push for better climate regulations. Efforts should be entirely focused on making "carbon" energy sources obsolete. Making energy more expensive for poor people is a counter-productive endeavor, and doesn't fix the problem. Improved super-capacitors and breakthrough cheap energy storage technologies would be good enough to begin to phase out the current energy status-quo. Eventually someone will certainly come up with a breakthrough technology that will destroy the current energy paradigm.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

CO2 is something we can control. If it isn't the whole answer, then we're screwed anyway. But doing nothing is totally irresponsible. Too much on the line, right?

teslabox 10y ago
The Freakout is engineered to get people to support taxes on "carbon". It would be much more effective to ignore the existing industries and work on making them obsolete. Firefly Energy [1] came up with a good-enough Lead Acid battery - "the energy of NiMH, for the cost of lead", fully recyclable with existing infrastructure, etc. Their batteries would have been perfectly useful for low-range electric vehicles like Postal delivery trucks (20-miles/day) and home energy storage (solar panels, shifting power use to off-peak, etc). But they ramped up for production in the midst of the housing collapse (2006-ish?), and ran out of money. The government only gave money to "advanced chemistry" battery technologies. Firefly Energy had to declare bankruptcy, last I read an Indian company bought the IP... and it's gone nowhere. [1] http://fireflyenergy.com/ http://fireflyenergy.com/ > CO2 is something we can control. If it isn't the whole answer, then we're screwed anyway. A friend has told me of the 'Maunder minimum' [2] phenomenon, and that our Sun might be preparing to reduce its output for 30-45 years. If that happens, all efforts to suppress CO2 will be for naught. It is better to focus on the desired outcome than on the present problem. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
- triplesec 10y ago
  You really need to read and understan this site, rather than quoting denialist fantasies. A solar minimum would make no meaningful difference to what we've done http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-d... Edit OTOH I dp appreciate your mentioning various usful technologies like these batteries, but they are drops in the ocean so far. I hope they help, but they need to be on top of a fast reduction in carbon outfput, and given this year's figures we may be in for a terribly bumpy ride anyway.