
World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report - ph0rque
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html
======
300bps
It's no surprise that the AGW crowd is losing the war of public opinion. Take
the last line of the article that details a part of the report:

 _The draft report says the available evidence now suggests that above a
certain threshold of warming, the Greenland ice sheet will almost disappear
within approximately 1000 years, which will result in 7 metres of global sea-
level rise. It estimates that the threshold may lie between 1 °C and 4 °C of
warming, but is not confident of this figure._

So what they're saying is they are not confident that some degree of warming
may occur within a huge band which may do something that sounds really bad
(but they don't actually spell out the bad things) in the next 1,000 years.

I am a scientifically literate person with a strong conservation and
environmental bent. But when I read something like this even I roll my eyes.
Because I want people to actually conserve, please take the following advice
to the AGW crowd:

First, stop using the disaster du jour to say, "See!?! We can expect more of
this from now on!" Because when you did this with Katrina and then we had 8
years of relatively quiet hurricane seasons you sound like a "sky is falling"
fool. The fact that "An Inconvenient Truth" came out shortly after Katrina
with a hurricane on the movie posters and box covers was ridiculous.

Second, stop making inaccurate predictions about what is going to happen. For
example - for a while everyone was decrying that snow was a thing of the past
because of global warming (example:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-
now-j...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-
thing-of-the-past-724017.html)) When we then had record snowfalls throughout
many areas of the world, the same people changed their tune and said,
"Exactly! Global Warming will actually bring more snow!" Enough of this
nonsense.

Stop using things like carbon credits to live a ridiculously lavish lifestyle
while telling everyone else to live simply.

Finally, stop trying to profit off of AGW.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-
environmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-
environment/03gore.html?_r=0)

There are many people that you will never convince of the reality of AGW. But
there are many more people that you are turning away from believing you
because of the things above. Because I think finite resource conservation is
the right thing to do, please stop hurting this cause.

~~~
anon1385
>there are many more people that you are turning away from believing you
because of the things above

The 'things above' being two insignificant newspaper articles over the last 13
years? Get real. People reject AGW[1] because of a very well funded propaganda
campaign that spreads disinformation and because the existence of AGW is
incompatible with the conservative, capitalist political philosophies held by
most people in the anglosphere. There are studies demonstrating the latter
effect:

 _Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of
compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an
experiment to probe two alternative answers: the “Science Comprehension
Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and
reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the “Identity-
protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling
the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-
relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult
problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from
empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in Numeracy — a measure of the
ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information — did
substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as
results from a study of a new skin-rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects’
responses became politically polarized — and even less accurate — when the
same data were presented as results from the study of a gun-control ban. But
contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among
subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported
ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-
reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to
the result most consistent with their political outlooks._

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992)

A few misguided newpaper articles that over excitedly exaggerated uncertain
predictions didn't make any difference to anything. Neither did Al Gore's
personal finances. People ranting about Al Gore were never going to be won
over by scientific arguments, their position is based on emotion and politics,
not logical reasoning.

[1] people in the aglosphere that is, it's a much less prevalent phenomenon
elsewhere

~~~
jerf
People in general, perhaps. But for myself, my biggest problem with AGW is
indeed the fact that its predictions have an ever-longer history of not coming
true.

As a person interested in science, I consider this a fatal objection to any
theory. AGW is not excepted. Anyone who has the mental gymnastic strength to
talk themselves past this problem is merely demonstrating that they are not
actually interested in science at this point, as the disparity between theory
and fact is pretty clear at this point.

If "the public" are having problems with AGW for the wrong reasons, well, it's
hardly the first time the correct conclusion has been reached for the wrong
reasons.

~~~
mcv
> my biggest problem with AGW is indeed the fact that its predictions have an
> ever-longer history of not coming true.

Are you saying that global temperatures aren't rising? Is the arctic icecap
not rapidly getting smaller? I believe even the rising sea level is already
measurable (though still small at this point).

The predictions are coming true in a quite alarming fashion.

~~~
samiru
> Are you saying that global temperatures aren't rising?

Yes, see [http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-
uncerta...](http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-
uncertainty-20130923,0,791164.story)

> Is the arctic icecap not rapidly getting smaller?

Well, it's not. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-
cooli...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-
Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)

> I believe even the rising sea level is already measurable

Sure. Global Sea Level Rise Dampened by Australia Floods -
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819141610.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819141610.htm)

~~~
acqq
Giving the links to the articles which present the views of denialists as
facts aren't proof of anything but that there are journalist and media that
distort what the most scientist believe.

See:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451344)

~~~
talmand
Three of the Rules of Radicals:

#3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.

#5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

#13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

All in one sentence at that. Excellent.

~~~
sally888
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

~~~
talmand
But I wasn't attacking, I was congratulating.

------
jsdalton
I wish geoengineering played a much larger role in the conversations around
global warming.

It seems we're never going to wean ourselves off of petroleum, and most
efforts to meaningfully curtail its use are politically untenable (outside of
Europe that is).

I think if people who believe in global warming are serious about solving the
problem and not just hand waving about driving less and turning off our
lights, then they'd start devoting some serious attention to geoengineering.

(Note I'm not poking at a straw man in the paragraph above. Check out the NRDC
page on global warming solutions
[[http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/solutions/](http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/solutions/)].
I see a lot about restricting pollution and remaking our lifestyles, but
NOTHING at all about geoengineering.)

------
SeanDav
It is laughable that all this is based on imprecise models and simulations and
not actual science. There is nothing provable with any of this or for that
matter disprovable.

Alter the inputs and weighting in the models by merest fractions, or try take
new factors into account and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, yet
on the basis of this Billions, if not Trillions of dollars are being moved
around and new laws are being made, among many other side effects.

Who decided exactly what inputs are needed for calculations and which should
be left out? Who decided their relative weightings? Who decided the exact
nature of the interactions inside the models?

It is just crazy.

~~~
tfgg
Scientists? People who study the physics of the system in question by building
models, simulating them and comparing to data? I'm not sure what else you
expect. I'll take them for big policy decisions any day over some blogger
cherry picking data.

~~~
talmand
Seems to me that everyone involved is cherry picking the data to support their
own interpretation. There's even been accusations of cherry picking of how the
data is collected in the first place.

~~~
demallien
If that's how it seems to you, you are not paying enough attention. Scientists
are providing full data sets, and denialists are cherry-picking. I can't
convince you just by saying so, but seriously, this is an important issue. Set
aside some time (a day or two) and read some if the key papers characterising
climate change. You will come away with a very different idea on where the
truth lies in this "debate".

~~~
talmand
Scientists are most certainly not providing full data sets across the board.
There's been a scandal or two of scientists withholding data, even committing
criminal acts in some cases. I know it hasn't happened within the last few
months so I'm sure it's easy to forget.

Oh wait, "denialists" made those accusations. We can ignore them right? After
all, who cares about an opposing viewpoint when you can give them
condescending names? Just mock them until they shut up. I mean, real science
doesn't need people with different viewpoints duplicating the results, right?
You display your bias like a badge of honor.

What good is a full data set if it was collected in a way to push an agenda in
the first place? Which I notice you don't address at all in responding to my
post. I can go out and get you data that says whatever you want it to say,
provided I'm allowed to question the motives of anyone that says my data
collection protocols might be faulty.

I'm sure you would like me to read just the "key" papers that support your
contentions. Let's ignore "key" papers that might disagree or even agree with
a slightly different viewpoint that doesn't present such a drastic outlook.
Heck, we should even go out of our way to prevent opposing papers from being
even considered in peer-reviewed journals, right? Sorry, that's old news not
worth considering anymore I guess.

You seem to be an example (granted, I admit I could be wrong as I don't know
you, just going off your condescending words) of what's wrong with this
"debate" that has people already deciding what is truth or not. You have no
freaking clue what my opinions on this matter are nor what I've read. You see
that I might possibly disagree with you and therefore I must be spoken down to
as someone who isn't paying enough attention nor is reading the correct
materials.

But you are correct in one thing, this is an important issue that could
heavily influence the future of people around the world. I, for one, want to
at least attempt to get it right because if we're wrong then at best we waste
resources and at worst we multiply the problems. To get it right definitely
includes listening to people who may have different ideas or even opposing
viewpoints.

~~~
demallien
But put that aside, let me give you a primer on climate change.

Here are some indisputable facts (well, to dispute them, you would need to
overturn quantum physics, not impossible, but quite a hard task):

1) CO2 absorbs more infrared light than visible light. This can be
demonstrated in a laboratory, and we even know why this is the case, thanks to
quantum physics.

2) When sunlight hits the Earth, some is absorbed, and then re-emitted red-
shifted. Again, we have direct satellite measurements of this, and we also
have the theoretical explanation as to why, thanks you again quantum physics.

3) We know that we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again,
direct measurements show this, plus we know that we are producing CO2 with our
industrial processes.

Put those 3 facts together, and the baseline conclusion is that unless there
is some unknown fourth factor, our planet is going to get hotter. Scientists
noticed this back in the sixties, and started conducting experiments to see if
this was indeed the case. All of our measurements since then show that global
temperature is increasing, on average, which ties in nicely with what we
expect from theory (points 1-3 above).

Anybody that wants to make a serious claim that climate change isn't happening
needs to either demonstrate that one of points 1-3 is wrong, or that there is
a fourth factor. A fourth factor would be something like "as the world's
oceans become more acidic due to absorption of CO2, past a certain threshold
value the surface becomes more mirror-like, increasing the albedo, and hence
reducing the amount of red-shifting of light". A paper that demonstrated this,
and demonstrated that the effect would be big enough to overcome the increased
absorption caused by increased CO2 would indeed have demonstrated that climate
change would indeed be limited by the threshold value. If such a paper were to
come out, I personally would probably breath a deep sigh of relief and then
throw a party.

If someone tries to claim that climate change isn't happening without
demonstrating that points 1,2 or 3 are wrong, and without demonstrating an
unknown factor that hadn't yet been taken into account can be safely
dismissed. You _can_ question the specifics of the models, like "is the
Greenland ice sheet going to melt in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?" That's
fair game, and if you go and read the papers, you will see scientists doing
just that. But the overarching question of climate change? That's settled
business already, and anyone claiming otherwise deserves the title of
"denialist".

~~~
talmand
Oh yes, classic. Ignore what I said and continue with the condescending
lessons you insist that I need to put me on your alleged superior level. I now
have to question your ability to discuss these facts because your reading
comprehension is really lackluster.

In no way have I stated that I disagree with the three facts that you stated.
As I said before, which you chose to ignore; you have no clue as to what my
opinion on this matter is. You are simply assuming things because I'm in a
different section of the same ship. It's not my fault you decided to not get
out of your cabin and meet other people.

Do I deny that changes in the climate exists, possibly producing negative
results for the environment and/or human race? No.

Do I have a problem with the science that's been used to predict doomsday and
to force the drastic measures that some say is necessary for the human race to
survive? Yes.

Why do I have a problem with the science? Because it's been shoddy work, it's
been corrupted, and people who support the science go out of their way to shut
down those that may question the methods used. I have a third-grader that is
currently learning that is not the way to do proper science, why can't the so-
called adults understand this? You claim in your last paragraph that
questioning the models involved is fair game. That's what I've been doing and
yet you still have the condescending tone and name-calling. You are too quick
to label people "denialist" without thinking and it makes you look petty.

I highly disagree that we know for a fact that the climate changes we've seen
in the past few decades is solely the cause of human activity. There are
numerous possibilities that must be explored before we can say we know for a
fact of anything pertaining to this. Too many people do not want to do this
and just move forward trying to fix something that we don't understand nor
know how to fix. It's an effort "to do something" ignoring the fact that
method of governing often doesn't turn out so well.

I grew up with this nonsense way of thinking. I remember as a kid the global
cooling catastrophe we were heading for. I remember the urgency to do
something about CFCs. I remember global warming being a problem until people
realized the globe isn't really warming that much so it changed to climate
change. This is not science, this is politics.

So, forgive me if I don't jump on the bandwagon of people doing half the work,
declaring themselves the only source of the truth, demanding that people spend
countless amounts of resources doing things their way, and subjecting anyone
who dare question their data and methods to needless ridicule without actually
bothering to answer the questions that they raise.

You are not helping your cause.

------
CodeCube
Looking forward to my house turning into beachfront property here in Orlando,
FL!

~~~
pilom
Sounds nice except for you wont have any water to drink because all of the
freshwater aquifers in Florida will have been infiltrated by sea-water. And
this estimate of 1 meter of rise is on the low end of the estimates I've seen.
Hope you get exactly the amount of seawater rise you need and also can fund
your own desalination plant.

~~~
jtheory
Eh, Florida has enough green lawns to water that they're making good progress
salinizing their aquifers without any rising tide necessary.

------
ttflee
But in the longer term, isn't it the global cooling rather than the global
warming that is more disastrous to human beings and the eco-system?

~~~
MrZongle2
I think this is an excellent question.

There's been a lot of panic over the rise of sea levels and a warmer climate,
but why _exactly_ is this a world-ending disaster? Yes, the coastlines may
change and yes, people will be displaced.

Such has been the case for all of recorded history, and far before. Humans can
adapt: they have, and they will again.

I find the idea of geoengineering far more terrifying than global warming. The
community that can't get their models to explain the last few years of
observations now wants to throw a massive new wrench into the works? Madness.

~~~
csense
Exactly. If the sea levels rise ten meters overnight, that would be an
enormous catastrophe with unfathomable loss of life.

If the sea levels rise ten meters over a couple decades, people will get the
heck out when the water's at their ankles, instead of patiently waiting a few
years until it's over their heads.

Or figure out a local civil engineering solution like diverting the water with
levees and dams, that's at worst a local disaster if it doesn't work out.

~~~
talmand
You are quite wrong good sir, or madam, as someone else in this thread
explained that millions will drown with a drastic change in sea levels over
1000 years.

Actually, I'm assuming they were greatly exaggerating which seems to be
commonplace in these types of discussions so I decided to poke a little fun at
that one. Something about learning to swim and inventing something called a
boat.

------
dmead
in 3001: a space oddessy the book talks about how humanity had to build huge
mirrors to reflect heat back into space. my body is ready

------
bsullivan01
_the Greenland ice sheet will almost disappear within approximately 1000
years_

Gee, we're making 1000 predictions right now? How are those predictions made
10-30 years ago faring?

~~~
talmand
And who's to say that ice would not have disappeared naturally over the next
1000 years if humans didn't exist at all?

