SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-just-need-a-test-world-to-play-around-with dept.
From The Guardian
Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there's a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.
To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results.
Alas the results weren't good for that 3%...
Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions.
The article also notes,
..there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:37AM
or ocean cycles, or the natural comings and goings of the ice ages.
What are we going to do about it?
At least if global warming were caused by human activity we could stop those activities.
I don't see any arguments that the earth won't be uninhabitable for our grandchildren.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:48AM
I can assure you that global warming is caused by the Sun.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:30AM
Suppose global warming were caused by the sun or ocean cycles, or the natural comings and goings of the ice ages.
What are we going to do about it?
we could try our hand at geo-engineering but it's an extreme measure that should only be tried when all other options are exhausted.
I don't see any arguments that the earth won't be uninhabitable for our grandchildren.
the earth with still be inhabitable but less pleasant and many animal species will go extinct. you seem to forget that humans can adapt to live in some of the harshest environments.
we have people that live...
- in Antarctica,
- under the hole in the ozone in Austrailia
- in big underwater metal tubes called submarines
- in microgravity while flying around the planet at 17000 MPH
- on the equator and get hit by hurricanes every year
- in a pineapple under the sea
Do not underestimate humans, we are Earth's mightiest super predators and we will do anything to survive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:42AM
we could try our hand at geo-engineering but it's an extreme measure that should only be tried when all other options are exhausted.
My personal favorite (most bang for buck) is adding iron dust to the Pacific ocean. It is the limiting nutrient over a huge area.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:58AM
I thought of that about a year ago. Good to know someone is looking into it.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @11:51AM
I just saw your heading
Scuttle container ships full of scrap iron
That won't work. It is too deep and too calm, the stuff would just sit on the bottom.
The best way is ionic iron already in solution. As an alternative, really finely ground iron oxide powder (rust). The main problem is spreading it. You need to spread 100,000 tons evenly over half the ocean surface.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday August 29 2015, @12:21PM
The best way is iron ion already in solution.
Not correcting anything, just rewording it in a way I've long wanted to see :)
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by andersjm on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:57AM
If that were the case, then the best thing to do would be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to counteract it.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday August 29 2015, @09:24AM
The wavelength of 60 Hz - or 50 Hz in Europe - Alternating Current is quite long, thousands of miles. This implies that it penetrates deep into the Earth, heating it.
My father, a EE, once complained that buried power cables lose much of their electricity to absorption by the Earth.
How much? Could this contribute significantly to global warming?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday August 29 2015, @11:15AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @11:51PM
...and the other 94% is lost when it reaches its intended load.
Generally, the power used by Earthlings stays on Earth, with the exceptions of space lasers, and whatnot. Which part of the Earth gets heated probably doesn't matter much, holistically, unless we are starting to discuss how the temperature change affects the absorption of the sun's energy.