|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 06 2014 13:08 oneofthem wrote:
if i were a climatologist looking to make money i'd be tapping into the rightwing side of the argument.
but the basic mechanism of action for these things is pretty old science, partially from studying ancient extinction events that involved increase in global temperature. it's not profit driven.
the belief forming process here is just flawed for the deniers.
One side is 'profit' the other 'ideology'. Which is more fanatical? In the end, Chaos reigns and laughs at the hubris of humans. Let's only hope we don't follow the eugenicists on the 'planet is too populated', or the 'let's go back to inefficient modes of energy like Windmills', side of the argument.
I also am tired of the vagueness of the 'Global Warming' side, who've long since left that moniker at home, and instead co-opted the obvious Climate Change moniker. Obviously climate changes...I don't think anyone denies that, and you use the word and its connotative definition to brow-beat people. It's ridiculous. Weather is dynamic and chaotic, with variables we can't even imagine to map via causal relations.
Besides, the whole AGW side is schizo anyways. You have the anti-population folks, the greenies, and all these groups on this side when they should be on the other. That's always amused me to be honest. CO2 is a boon for plants. If what the AGW folks say will happen, then it will kill a lot of people and that's what the over/anti-population folks want. It's comical all around to be honest.
|
On February 06 2014 13:08 oneofthem wrote:
if i were a climatologist looking to make money i'd be tapping into the rightwing side of the argument.
but the basic mechanism of action for these things is pretty old science, partially from studying ancient extinction events that involved increase in global temperature. it's not profit driven.
the belief forming process here is just flawed for the deniers.
This is really answered by what xDaunt said. It's not a question of the science of greenhouse gases, it's a question of man's influence on a vast system with large forces.
On February 06 2014 10:32 xDaunt wrote:
When we're talking about manmade global warming, we're talking about mankind's contribution at the margins of a system that has much larger forces at work. More importantly, we're talking about a system that is not fully understood using data that is very limited on a geologic time scale. Toss in the wreckage of previous failed predictions from the alarmists, the obvious corruption of some green energy markets (carbon trading in particular), and the fact that the emerging market polluters are going to tell the world to fuck off, and I'm perfectly content to not go through with the kind of economic suicide pact that some would have us pursue.
What does make sense, however, is spending resources to prepare for the effects of climate change. That's where I would focus our efforts.
Now, if I think all American business is just greedy capitalist exploiters, and they should be taxed, forced to pay their "fair share," to profit share, and (the more evil ones) driven out of business--maybe I don't get so much support coming out and saying it. However, if I can say they're hurting the environment, causing impending floods and droughts and violent weather-based catastrophes, maybe I can achieve the same end with more support. That's the politically-driven argument.
Carbon trading schemes can be hugely profit driven. The selling and exchanging of those can net huge profits. The "carbon credit" businesses can make people rich. Secondly, you want a research grant to study the environment? What funds better ... I'm going to study the coming apocalypse, or I'm studying an environment doing just fine, thank you very much.
Note: I'm not saying every scientist is politically motivated to publish articles showing global warming. I'm shedding light on the other side, the ones that couldn't care less if it was a sham, so long as the desired results are achieved.
|
We need all the extra CO2 for all the marijuana we're going to be growing in the next few years.
|
i'm going way out on an extremely long limb here, but perhaps it's possible that you/xDaunt/Wegandi don't really have a strong handle on the process of scientific research, which leads y'all to believe that climate science is likely some sort of profiteering sham, or something in which corruption is widespread, and something that is a liberal concoction aimed at whatever the hell it is the fear-mongering train is cruising toward this week
|
This image comes to mind:
![[image loading]](http://www.mamieyoung.com/dailydawdle/Create%20a%20better%20world%20for%20nothing.jpg)
A world run by Wind, Solar, Wave and even Geothermal... Rather than Coal, Oil etc. Is there a con here?
|
On February 06 2014 13:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:This image comes to mind: A world run by Wind, Solar, Wave and even Geothermal... Rather than Coal, Oil etc. Is there a con here?
Fucking over our economy and standard of living by eliminating cheap energy and easy transportation. No thanks.
|
On February 06 2014 13:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 12:46 Jormundr wrote:On February 06 2014 11:28 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 11:13 Jormundr wrote:
Let's go back to the basics here.
Introvert, Danglars, do you agree that
1. Our CO2 output has increased monumentally in the past 200 years
2. CO2 is mainly stored in the air, the ocean, and plants (namely trees).
3. We killed off about half of our forests in the same 200 years.
If you do, then can you agree that
1. We can't keep p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ creating more CO2 than can be sequestered indefinitely, or t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶y̶ our lungs will fail.
2. Changes in atmospheric composition are likely to affect both climate and weather.
Let's not get too simple. We'll take your first set of statements, but... I'll ignore things like details on exactly how much CO2 we have in comparison to the rest of the gasses in the atmosphere (tiny). Also, aren't there also more trees (at least in America) than there was in 1800? I'll have to find that stat too. And finally, a minor quibble. Trees don't store CO2, they actively convert it back to Oxygen. It's not like killing all the tress releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere, just whatever CO2 the tree happens to be converting into carbs (IIRC). It's the Oceans that appear to be storing much of it, which is something scientists just recently figured out (once again making me very hesitant to invest billions into fixing the problem when it's not even understood. They missed the OCEAN.) So, sure, we have certainly been "harvesting" the land for some time now. For the latter set, I agree that there could be a point where it could be too much. I'm just not convinced that we've reached it. The earth has an amazing set of equalizing mechanisms. Now, these things COULD affect weather and climate, but I've yet to see solid evidence of it. Is it actually changing certain ecosystems? Seems like it's a distinct possibility (again, not my area of study), but weather? haven't seen it. Which is really what I was asking about. Can someone reliably verify that extreme weather events are increasing in frequency? Are we sure it's due to Climate Change? In response: That's a good thing to ignore, as it has little relevance to the discussion. There are less trees. Even if forests increased in size during this period (they didn't), we're talking about CO2's effect on the atmosphere, which is a global force, not a regional one. Trees are definitely carbon sinks. Burning trees does in fact release CO2 (wood combustion). However cutting trees down for building materials and re-planting the trees increases the size of the carbon sink. The first wikipedia source on oceanic carbon sequestration that I clicked on was published in 1995. Doesn't seem very recent. Most of the things I've read suggest that 30-40% of CO2 ends up sequestered in the ocean, mostly through acidification. The idea is that we don't want to reach that point. If the increase in CO2 output keeps accelerating, then we WILL reach a point where it is bad for us. The earth does have equalizing mechanisms. We've halved one of them (forests) resulting in a larger strain on the other two (oceans and air). Climate is changing. The temperature changes we've witnessed in the past 50 years are either indicative of an impending ice age or carbon dioxide trapping heat on the surface of the earth. This doesn't look like previous ice ages. Weather is not useful in this discussion especially not in the moronic "It's pretty hot over here, must be global warming" or "Feels pretty cold right about now, this global warming thing is bullshit" fashion that we see so much of. If a person made weather observations outside of their house hourly every day for 20 years, they would still not have enough data to draw a valid conclusion. Hence why it's called global warming, not regional warming. For ecosystems, greenland, Antarctica are pretty obvious examples. Less forests? Yes. Fewer tress? No. Now certainly these trees are not as old or as large as before, but there are more of them. We aren't just butchering trees and then walking away, we're being responsible and replacing them. We must mean something different by "sink." I think of it like the ocean- it takes the CO2 and traps it. Trees, on the other hand, actively use it to make new molecules. And I didn't say anything about burning tress, I said "killing trees." As for the ocean, I believe it was the recent IPCC report that basically mentioned "oh, well we didn't really account for the ocean in our models." They didn't accurately see it's potential (or they way under compensated). I agree weather arguments are stupid. The funny thing is, I was responding to someone else asking by asking for proof of worse and worse occurrences as a trend. Still haven't gotten a reply on that one. I am simply of the opinion that we don't have enough data to suppress economies to the tune of billions in order to redo something. Things fluctuate, it's not like the earth has always had an average temperature of X degrees. I mean, didn't Greenland and the arctic get all of it's ice back? But maybe it will lose much of it again, and maybe it will be due to climate change. They always push back their numbers on the date of Doomsday. It's shortsighted to say that in the coming decades we won't get better and better technology. This seems to be something no one takes into account. Why is it so hard for people to actually see the point/question instead of randomly tailing off into an unrelated topic?
Less forests is an important distinction because forests have more carbon stored in biomass than tree farms. The overall volume of wood is directly related to the amount of carbon being stored. I would like to see you find a source that we have more tree mass than 200 years ago.
Trees store carbon
http://forestry.alabama.gov/HowMuchCarbonHaveYourTreesStored.aspx?bv=5&s=0
Pretty sure Alabama ain't about them libral media conspiracies. And yes trees do also process CO2 through respiration.
You're saying we don't have enough data. You are incorrect. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is increasing at an accelerating rate in the atmosphere. Normally your best friend (Mr. Free Market) would come in and put a price on CO2. Unfortunately this is a long-term concern, so actors in the market have no innate reason to price it in to their business models (it's the next generations problem). Therefore we have a market inefficiency where the current actors are making a profit at the expense of future actors. The government has three choices:
1. Keep everything the same. Worst case scenario is only avoided if production methods no longer have significant CO2 output before the point when the CO2 concentration has negative effects.
2. Try to introduce the cost of CO2 production through taxes - may curtail production rates enough to achieve an equilibrium.
3. Reduce the amount of CO2 produced globally to achieve an equilibrium.
Data points fluctuate. Trends not so much. The earth actually does have an average temperature. It may not have been calculated accurately, and it has no relevance in the current discussion, but it does exist. We have large amounts of data on the last few major climate cycles, and the current changes in CO2 concentration and temperature appear as outliers. Greenland and antarctica do melt and gain mass cyclically. The problem is that this yearly cycle is no longer in balance, as more ice is melting than snow is falling, thus sea level has risen steadily. This is another trend that is an outlier compared to what we know about the earth's climate cycles.
Who are they and why are they talking about doomsdays and why are you listening to them? The current prediction (that if there is a doomsday and we continue increasing CO2 output at the rate we are currently, we will reach that doomsday) is pretty basic logic. You yourself use the exact same logic every time you talk about the national debt. You don't have a certain prediction of the future, but you do know that in similar cases you have seen, debt which is out of equilibrium with income has had bad consequences. This is the exact same scenario, only with more data and less theory (although no less complex than economic theory, atmospheric science thankfully doesn't rely on human behavior). It is, by definition, short sighted to NOT think about the consequences this has on our future.
|
United States43538 Posts
Well we'd all have to work far harder because energy costs being so low is fantastic for our quality of life. Oil bubbles up and powers our society, it's great.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
whatever the solution may be, it is at least important to recognize the problem. that part should not be very complicated, even if we restrict acknowledging to one of the branches of a conditional probability.
there's also no hard technology bottleneck on a number of theoretically low energy cost infrastructure setups to resolve, at the least, powergrid power demands from non fossil fuel sources. it's just a question of capital investment and a little bit of time
btw wegandi, i presume you are taking the 'ideology' side of the 'ideology vs profit' wars?
|
On February 06 2014 13:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
i'm going way out on an extremely long limb here, but perhaps it's possible that you/xDaunt/Wegandi don't really have a strong handle on the process of scientific research, which leads y'all to believe that climate science is likely some sort of profiteering sham, or something in which corruption is widespread, and something that is a liberal concoction aimed at whatever the hell it is the fear-mongering train is cruising toward this week
Or perhaps you're selectively biased based on the conclusions of said 'XYZ' science/scientist. How you can claim me calling weather more factual to be modeled via Chaos Theory (e.g. unpredictable) unscientific or ignorant in science, is ballsy, considering Chaos Theory is nothing, but science, and is a much better indicator of Weather than the non-sense hubris of wrong model after wrong model. There are too many variables, too many causal relationships, too many unknowns to ever come to a decisive conclusion of AGW let alone weather patterns five minutes from now. There's a reason meteorologists don't stake their lives on their claims - they know they're estimates, probabilities at best. They can't say for sure, if it's going to rain tomorrow...so they'll give you a 30% chance. Now, we expect 'climatologists' to tell you with certainty what the weather patterns and outcomes will be in XYZ years with XYZ variables? Don't make me laugh.
It's hubris and arrogance to think otherwise. It's ok to say, we can't know, or I don't know, or it's unknowable. I bet you're going to tell me Chaos Theory is all BS and anti-scientific now....
|
On February 06 2014 14:26 oneofthem wrote:
whatever the solution may be, it is at least important to recognize the problem. that part should not be very complicated, even if we restrict acknowledging to one of the branches of a conditional probability.
The issue is that the presumption of the "consensus" is that man is the problem. Again, mankind's contribution to the dynamics dictating global climate change is at the extreme margin. We are talking just a few percentage points of total carbon output and absolutely puny contributions to greenhouse gases in general. Of course, the consensus justifies its presumption with hilariously inadequate positive feedback models of a system that they still don't fully understand. I certainly don't mind the scientific inquiry into this area, but we are a long ways off from calling this stuff a sound basis for policy -- much less policy that will have profoundly negative consequences for all of us.
|
On February 06 2014 14:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 13:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:This image comes to mind: A world run by Wind, Solar, Wave and even Geothermal... Rather than Coal, Oil etc. Is there a con here? Fucking over our economy and standard of living by eliminating cheap energy and easy transportation. No thanks.
If you think an Oil based economy is a utopia then you'e in for a rude awakening.
|
On February 06 2014 14:26 oneofthem wrote:
whatever the solution may be, it is at least important to recognize the problem. that part should not be very complicated, even if we restrict acknowledging to one of the branches of a conditional probability.
there's also no hard technology bottleneck on a number of theoretically low energy cost infrastructure setups to resolve, at the least, powergrid power demands from non fossil fuel sources. it's just a question of capital investment and a little bit of time
btw wegandi, i presume you are taking the 'ideology' side of the 'ideology vs profit' wars?
I take the side that says Weather is too unpredictable, too variable, and too dynamic to understand to any applicable extent, especially one with policy proposals as radical as suggested by so-called supporters. Now, if we want to debate about pollution and property rights, I'm down for that (e.g. property rights would be a stricter regulator of pollution than regulatory-agencies. Bring back the Nuisance Laws!).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 06 2014 14:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 14:26 oneofthem wrote:
whatever the solution may be, it is at least important to recognize the problem. that part should not be very complicated, even if we restrict acknowledging to one of the branches of a conditional probability. The issue is that the presumption of the "consensus" is that man is the problem. Again, mankind's contribution to the dynamics dictating global climate change is at the extreme margin. We are talking just a few percentage points of total carbon output and absolutely puny contributions to greenhouse gases in general. Of course, the consensus justifies its presumption with hilariously inadequate positive feedback models of a system that they still don't fully understand. I certainly don't mind the scientific inquiry into this area, but we are a long ways off from calling this stuff a sound basis for policy -- much less policy that will have profoundly negative consequences for all of us.
1. natural rates of carbon release is balanced by natural sinks. so although by a per annum basis anthrocarbon may be low in proportion, over time it does contribute significantly to increase in co2 content.
2. there are run-away feedback loops in this delicate cycle
you've drastically understated the problem at a rather basic level
|
On February 06 2014 14:41 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 14:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2014 14:26 oneofthem wrote:
whatever the solution may be, it is at least important to recognize the problem. that part should not be very complicated, even if we restrict acknowledging to one of the branches of a conditional probability. The issue is that the presumption of the "consensus" is that man is the problem. Again, mankind's contribution to the dynamics dictating global climate change is at the extreme margin. We are talking just a few percentage points of total carbon output and absolutely puny contributions to greenhouse gases in general. Of course, the consensus justifies its presumption with hilariously inadequate positive feedback models of a system that they still don't fully understand. I certainly don't mind the scientific inquiry into this area, but we are a long ways off from calling this stuff a sound basis for policy -- much less policy that will have profoundly negative consequences for all of us. 1. natural rates of carbon release is balanced by natural sinks. so although by a per annum basis anthrocarbon may be low in proportion, over time it does contribute significantly to increase in co2 content. 2. there are run-away feedback loops in this delicate cycle you've drastically understated the problem at a rather basic level
Define natural. Climate is an ever changing dynamic system...I challenge anyone to state with any certifiable confidence what natural is. Was the climate 300 million years natural? What about 50 million years ago? 15,000 years ago? Was the carboniferous period natural? Jurassic? Neolithic? The Earth has been a giant Ice-ball before, was that natural? We've also been an almost entirely water-world. Was that natural? Please, explain.
|
Those aren't the numbers i'm seeing daunt, what i'm seeing is a consensus of well documented science; with the dissenting voices largely being people blatantly attempting to misrepresent the truth for money.
Actually, there's plenty of evidence to provide a sound basis for policy; and your assertion of the policies leading to utter doom and gloom is plain wrong, so please stop making it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 06 2014 14:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 14:41 oneofthem wrote:On February 06 2014 14:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2014 14:26 oneofthem wrote:
whatever the solution may be, it is at least important to recognize the problem. that part should not be very complicated, even if we restrict acknowledging to one of the branches of a conditional probability. The issue is that the presumption of the "consensus" is that man is the problem. Again, mankind's contribution to the dynamics dictating global climate change is at the extreme margin. We are talking just a few percentage points of total carbon output and absolutely puny contributions to greenhouse gases in general. Of course, the consensus justifies its presumption with hilariously inadequate positive feedback models of a system that they still don't fully understand. I certainly don't mind the scientific inquiry into this area, but we are a long ways off from calling this stuff a sound basis for policy -- much less policy that will have profoundly negative consequences for all of us. 1. natural rates of carbon release is balanced by natural sinks. so although by a per annum basis anthrocarbon may be low in proportion, over time it does contribute significantly to increase in co2 content. 2. there are run-away feedback loops in this delicate cycle you've drastically understated the problem at a rather basic level Define natural. Climate is an ever changing dynamic system...I challenge anyone to state with any certifiable confidence what natural is. Was the climate 300 million years natural? What about 50 million years ago? 15,000 years ago? Was the carboniferous period natural? Jurassic? Neolithic? The Earth has been a giant Ice-ball before, was that natural? We've also been an almost entirely water-world. Was that natural? Please, explain.
natural as in non manmade. this is not a philosophical exercise here
if you want to say humans are natural too then replace natural with nonanthrogenic
|
On February 06 2014 14:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 13:04 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 12:46 Jormundr wrote:On February 06 2014 11:28 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 11:13 Jormundr wrote:
Let's go back to the basics here.
Introvert, Danglars, do you agree that
1. Our CO2 output has increased monumentally in the past 200 years
2. CO2 is mainly stored in the air, the ocean, and plants (namely trees).
3. We killed off about half of our forests in the same 200 years.
If you do, then can you agree that
1. We can't keep p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ creating more CO2 than can be sequestered indefinitely, or t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶y̶ our lungs will fail.
2. Changes in atmospheric composition are likely to affect both climate and weather.
Let's not get too simple. We'll take your first set of statements, but... I'll ignore things like details on exactly how much CO2 we have in comparison to the rest of the gasses in the atmosphere (tiny). Also, aren't there also more trees (at least in America) than there was in 1800? I'll have to find that stat too. And finally, a minor quibble. Trees don't store CO2, they actively convert it back to Oxygen. It's not like killing all the tress releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere, just whatever CO2 the tree happens to be converting into carbs (IIRC). It's the Oceans that appear to be storing much of it, which is something scientists just recently figured out (once again making me very hesitant to invest billions into fixing the problem when it's not even understood. They missed the OCEAN.) So, sure, we have certainly been "harvesting" the land for some time now. For the latter set, I agree that there could be a point where it could be too much. I'm just not convinced that we've reached it. The earth has an amazing set of equalizing mechanisms. Now, these things COULD affect weather and climate, but I've yet to see solid evidence of it. Is it actually changing certain ecosystems? Seems like it's a distinct possibility (again, not my area of study), but weather? haven't seen it. Which is really what I was asking about. Can someone reliably verify that extreme weather events are increasing in frequency? Are we sure it's due to Climate Change? In response: That's a good thing to ignore, as it has little relevance to the discussion. There are less trees. Even if forests increased in size during this period (they didn't), we're talking about CO2's effect on the atmosphere, which is a global force, not a regional one. Trees are definitely carbon sinks. Burning trees does in fact release CO2 (wood combustion). However cutting trees down for building materials and re-planting the trees increases the size of the carbon sink. The first wikipedia source on oceanic carbon sequestration that I clicked on was published in 1995. Doesn't seem very recent. Most of the things I've read suggest that 30-40% of CO2 ends up sequestered in the ocean, mostly through acidification. The idea is that we don't want to reach that point. If the increase in CO2 output keeps accelerating, then we WILL reach a point where it is bad for us. The earth does have equalizing mechanisms. We've halved one of them (forests) resulting in a larger strain on the other two (oceans and air). Climate is changing. The temperature changes we've witnessed in the past 50 years are either indicative of an impending ice age or carbon dioxide trapping heat on the surface of the earth. This doesn't look like previous ice ages. Weather is not useful in this discussion especially not in the moronic "It's pretty hot over here, must be global warming" or "Feels pretty cold right about now, this global warming thing is bullshit" fashion that we see so much of. If a person made weather observations outside of their house hourly every day for 20 years, they would still not have enough data to draw a valid conclusion. Hence why it's called global warming, not regional warming. For ecosystems, greenland, Antarctica are pretty obvious examples. Less forests? Yes. Fewer tress? No. Now certainly these trees are not as old or as large as before, but there are more of them. We aren't just butchering trees and then walking away, we're being responsible and replacing them. We must mean something different by "sink." I think of it like the ocean- it takes the CO2 and traps it. Trees, on the other hand, actively use it to make new molecules. And I didn't say anything about burning tress, I said "killing trees." As for the ocean, I believe it was the recent IPCC report that basically mentioned "oh, well we didn't really account for the ocean in our models." They didn't accurately see it's potential (or they way under compensated). I agree weather arguments are stupid. The funny thing is, I was responding to someone else asking by asking for proof of worse and worse occurrences as a trend. Still haven't gotten a reply on that one. I am simply of the opinion that we don't have enough data to suppress economies to the tune of billions in order to redo something. Things fluctuate, it's not like the earth has always had an average temperature of X degrees. I mean, didn't Greenland and the arctic get all of it's ice back? But maybe it will lose much of it again, and maybe it will be due to climate change. They always push back their numbers on the date of Doomsday. It's shortsighted to say that in the coming decades we won't get better and better technology. This seems to be something no one takes into account. Why is it so hard for people to actually see the point/question instead of randomly tailing off into an unrelated topic? Less forests is an important distinction because forests have more carbon stored in biomass than tree farms. The overall volume of wood is directly related to the amount of carbon being stored. I would like to see you find a source that we have more tree mass than 200 years ago. Trees store carbon http://forestry.alabama.gov/HowMuchCarbonHaveYourTreesStored.aspx?bv=5&s=0Pretty sure Alabama ain't about them libral media conspiracies. And yes trees do also process CO2 through respiration. You're saying we don't have enough data. You are incorrect. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is increasing at an accelerating rate in the atmosphere. Normally your best friend (Mr. Free Market) would come in and put a price on CO2. Unfortunately this is a long-term concern, so actors in the market have no innate reason to price it in to their business models (it's the next generations problem). Therefore we have a market inefficiency where the current actors are making a profit at the expense of future actors. The government has three choices: 1. Keep everything the same. Worst case scenario is only avoided if production methods no longer have significant CO2 output before the point when the CO2 concentration has negative effects. 2. Try to introduce the cost of CO2 production through taxes - may curtail production rates enough to achieve an equilibrium. 3. Reduce the amount of CO2 produced globally to achieve an equilibrium. Data points fluctuate. Trends not so much. The earth actually does have an average temperature. It may not have been calculated accurately, and it has no relevance in the current discussion, but it does exist. We have large amounts of data on the last few major climate cycles, and the current changes in CO2 concentration and temperature appear as outliers. Greenland and antarctica do melt and gain mass cyclically. The problem is that this yearly cycle is no longer in balance, as more ice is melting than snow is falling, thus sea level has risen steadily. This is another trend that is an outlier compared to what we know about the earth's climate cycles. Who are they and why are they talking about doomsdays and why are you listening to them? The current prediction (that if there is a doomsday and we continue increasing CO2 output at the rate we are currently, we will reach that doomsday) is pretty basic logic. You yourself use the exact same logic every time you talk about the national debt. You don't have a certain prediction of the future, but you do know that in similar cases you have seen, debt which is out of equilibrium with income has had bad consequences. This is the exact same scenario, only with more data and less theory (although no less complex than economic theory, atmospheric science thankfully doesn't rely on human behavior). It is, by definition, short sighted to NOT think about the consequences this has on our future.
Boy, you guys are really good at taking a statement and then not actually addressing what I said, but addressing what you thought my statement implied.
I acknowledged that the trees are smaller, and of course, as trees grow they store carbon. They are made of carbon(-hydrates). And of course there is CO2 in trees, but perhaps that's because livings things don't stop living and then come back to life? There is always CO2 in a tree, the tree is always continuing to live. They aren't "sinks." They use it and lose it, if you will. They don't continue to gain CO2 unless they are actually growing. Which interestingly enough, is also what young trees do to! I already granted that bigger trees do more.
You're saying we don't have enough data. You are incorrect. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is increasing at an accelerating rate in the atmosphere. Normally your best friend (Mr. Free Market) would come in and put a price on CO2. Unfortunately this is a long-term concern, so actors in the market have no innate reason to price it in to their business models (it's the next generations problem). Therefore we have a market inefficiency where the current actors are making a profit at the expense of future actors. The government has three choices:
1. Keep everything the same. Worst case scenario is only avoided if production methods no longer have significant CO2 output before the point when the CO2 concentration has negative effects.
2. Try to introduce the cost of CO2 production through taxes - may curtail production rates enough to achieve an equilibrium.
3. Reduce the amount of CO2 produced globally to achieve an equilibrium.
At no point did I deny an increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2, that's a relatively easy test. I said we don't enough data on its effect to justify the massive economic hit some advocate we take. The free market WILL work, people are interested in this stuff, so long as it works. Just because it's not moving at your desired pace doesn't make it stagnant.
Data points fluctuate. Trends not so much. The earth actually does have an average temperature. It may not have been calculated accurately, and it has no relevance in the current discussion, but it does exist. We have large amounts of data on the last few major climate cycles, and the current changes in CO2 concentration and temperature appear as outliers. Greenland and antarctica do melt and gain mass cyclically. The problem is that this yearly cycle is no longer in balance, as more ice is melting than snow is falling, thus sea level has risen steadily. This is another trend that is an outlier compared to what we know about the earth's climate cycles.
You entirely missed my point about trends. I wanted to see data on the trends of extreme weather. How hard is that for everyone to get? I've only asked for it like 5 times.
Of course there is an average, but that average has fluctuated in the past (if we use local averages for certain time periods obviously, if we go back to a less green earth in the past it's going to be different).
As far as I'm aware, the arctic made back 100+% of its ice. Don't quote me on that though :p
Who are they and why are they talking about doomsdays and why are you listening to them? The current prediction (that if there is a doomsday and we continue increasing CO2 output at the rate we are currently, we will reach that doomsday) is pretty basic logic. You yourself use the exact same logic every time you talk about the national debt. You don't have a certain prediction of the future, but you do know that in similar cases you have seen, debt which is out of equilibrium with income has had bad consequences. This is the exact same scenario, only with more data and less theory (although no less complex than economic theory, atmospheric science thankfully doesn't rely on human behavior). It is, by definition, short sighted to NOT think about the consequences this has on our future.
I listen to the doomsayers because I have no choice? They are everywhere, you yourself are acting like one. I SAID such a point existed, but I don't believe we have reached it. There is obviously SOME point that could be reached. I'm saying the ones we have (as long as they aren't from Al Gore) are a decent way into the future, and they are always being revised further into the future. Thus, I think technology will beat the doomsday to the punch. We'd do it even faster if we didn't have so many people (who ironically claim to be for the earth) who whine about nuclear. We wouldn't be making leaps and bounds (or maybe we would) but we'd be making progress.
EDIT: Also, I'm not even sure how much of the increase is due entirely to humans, or what other factors are involved.
|
On February 06 2014 14:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 14:46 Wegandi wrote:On February 06 2014 14:41 oneofthem wrote:On February 06 2014 14:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2014 14:26 oneofthem wrote:
whatever the solution may be, it is at least important to recognize the problem. that part should not be very complicated, even if we restrict acknowledging to one of the branches of a conditional probability. The issue is that the presumption of the "consensus" is that man is the problem. Again, mankind's contribution to the dynamics dictating global climate change is at the extreme margin. We are talking just a few percentage points of total carbon output and absolutely puny contributions to greenhouse gases in general. Of course, the consensus justifies its presumption with hilariously inadequate positive feedback models of a system that they still don't fully understand. I certainly don't mind the scientific inquiry into this area, but we are a long ways off from calling this stuff a sound basis for policy -- much less policy that will have profoundly negative consequences for all of us. 1. natural rates of carbon release is balanced by natural sinks. so although by a per annum basis anthrocarbon may be low in proportion, over time it does contribute significantly to increase in co2 content. 2. there are run-away feedback loops in this delicate cycle you've drastically understated the problem at a rather basic level Define natural. Climate is an ever changing dynamic system...I challenge anyone to state with any certifiable confidence what natural is. Was the climate 300 million years natural? What about 50 million years ago? 15,000 years ago? Was the carboniferous period natural? Jurassic? Neolithic? The Earth has been a giant Ice-ball before, was that natural? We've also been an almost entirely water-world. Was that natural? Please, explain. natural as in non manmade. this is not a philosophical exercise here if you want to say humans are natural too then replace natural with nonanthrogenic
We're talking climate. It is not a philosophical exercise - it's an important distinction since you use it as a crux of your argument. Who cares if figuratively it is 'man made' or not. Does it matter if CO2 levels are as they are because of Volcanism, or because of Industrial Factories? After-all, we're talking conclusions based off variable data-points, no? In other words, what I am getting at is you can't claim a state of climate that is natural, and then call other states unnatural, because there is no such base line of 'natural'. The Earth has been all over the place in its climatological history. I'm pointing out your naturalistic fallacy. Anyways, I still find all this humorous.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
