Author Topic: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2  (Read 38047 times)

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #150 on: November 13, 2015, 12:10:35 PM »
Meanwhile... looks like this week may be the last time we see 400 ppm CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory (an important measurement point because it is a high-quality data set for many decades) in our lifetimes unless we get an unexpectedly low dip next Aug-September.

http://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2015/11/09/the-final-days-of-sub-400-ppm-carbon-dioxide/

The link is to a blog and semi-opinion piece.

Onward and upward!

You're right that it's an opinion piece as it's not based on known facts. Plants will flourish and the planet will become greener, which is good for everyone. This is lost on the fear mongers who lack or choose to ignore basic science.

I identified it as an opinion piece as fair warning. 

The Mauna Loa data are facts and appear to document the imminent crossing of the 400 ppm threshold (which is a numerical milepost rather than a technical one). As noted above, yes increased CO2 can change photosynthesis of plants. No problem there. The problem comes from stovepiping to *only good* or *only bad* outcomes. Stovepiping is bad because it leads people to discuss rabbit holes and it is very easy to point out the other items that are bad and accuse of cherry picking. Pretty much every climate scientist I know, and everyone in my technical community that I interact with on these issues in an application framework, recognizes that the impacts/influences of climate change are complex and will have varied influences. Some of those will be good and some will be bad. It is equally myopic to make your arguments based on "but look at this good thing" as to say "climate is a unilateral disaster." The broad view, as supported by the evidence and best available science, says that the impacts will be negative.  You can argue otherwise, but your arguments will have to be backed up and have to directly address the negative impacts in a technical way to be credible.

I do not say this to be dismissive or insulting, so please do not take it that way. It takes a lot of technical knowledge to sort through this stuff and even more to have a grasp- a real grasp- of what the uncertainty means in technical terms. It takes a lot of knowledge to know how little you know and understand. This is a barrier I've passed through many times delving deeply into technical issues and it has taught me to be humble and open minded (note that I actually did check the references on the OPs post). Please reflect on this when arguing that you don't believe what the overwhelming body of scientists who study this deeply are telling us. You should entertain the idea that you are quite simply wrong on the big picture, even if CO2 uptake is somewhat increased relative to the much larger uptake in CO2 concentrations.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #151 on: November 13, 2015, 12:21:21 PM »
"The Science is settled"

God as a scientist, I hate that attitude.  No it isn't.  In fact science is never "settled".  That is not the way science works.  Every discovery or bit of knowledge leads to more questions which in turn leads to better understanding and on it goes.  It's a continuous process and very often scientists are proven to be wrong (infact, everything by definition is "wrong" because it is an incomplete understanding limited by the knowledge and tools we have currently, even when there is a consensus.  Science is just a process for more accurately understanding the world, and since it is run by humans, it is naturally flawed. 

That doesn't mean you need to ignore it, but a little humility never hurts the cause.  Saying that "science is settled" means that you don't understand what science is and how it works. 

Now personally, I tend to believe the large body of evidence that global manmade climate change is real, and it's a problem (but not a catastrophe), and we are too late to really do much about it besides adapt to it.  The climate will be more unstable, farmable land will shift north towards the poles over the next several hundred years (Buy land in Canada folks).  The people who will suffer the most won't be more developed countries, it will be the poor living in coastal areas.  The time scale to react will be slow enough that we will slog on.  I just think we can do better in terms of energy than burning carbon.  We have lots of other options that have less of an impact on the climate and ecology, plus we won't have to send people to fight wars or perform dangerous jobs in order to dig the stuff out of the ground.  It's time to move on and do better.
I'm not interested in getting drug into this thread, but wanted to acknowledge a well thought out post. 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #152 on: November 13, 2015, 01:00:13 PM »
  • Second, speaking of disasters: contrary to music lover's yet-another-erroneous-comment above (about the government failing to maintain the levees in New Orleans -- no, music lover, the government failed to design the levees for a storm that big),
The government either knew that they weren't designed properly but opted to not to build them to a proper standard, and then allowed people to live in unsafe areas prone to flooding. Or, they were designed properly but not maintained over the years.

Therefore, my comment that the failure was the fault of government was right.[/list]

Here's what you actually wrote, verbatim (in case you forgot, and also forgot how to go back and look at earlier posts):

New Orleans did not flood because of sea level rise. The poor maintenance of infrastructure and levees over many years was well known long before Katrina hit. You can't blame warming for the failure of government to maintain the levees.

As any reasonable person (I was going to say "you," but then changed my mind) can plainly see, you blamed government specifically for its "failure... to maintain," not for any other kind of failure. I haven't been keeping track of the exact number, but this is only one (relatively minor) instance out of many in which you've been arguing disingenuously and in bad faith by misrepresenting what you previously claimed. For that reason, I feel justified in telling you to fuck off.

The problem comes from stovepiping to *only good* or *only bad* outcomes. Stovepiping is bad because it leads people to discuss rabbit holes and it is very easy to point out the other items that are bad and accuse of cherry picking. Pretty much every climate scientist I know, and everyone in my technical community that I interact with on these issues in an application framework, recognizes that the impacts/influences of climate change are complex and will have varied influences. Some of those will be good and some will be bad. It is equally myopic to make your arguments based on "but look at this good thing" as to say "climate is a unilateral disaster." The broad view, as supported by the evidence and best available science, says that the impacts will be negative.  You can argue otherwise, but your arguments will have to be backed up and have to directly address the negative impacts in a technical way to be credible.

I do not say this to be dismissive or insulting...

First of all, Glenstache is exactly right, both about "stovepiping" being bad and about arguing against the broad view requiring said arguments to be backed up by evidence.

However, I'm going to be a bit dismissive and insulting, because again, some of us have been arguing in bad faith and I see no reason to tolerate it.

Here's the issue in a nutshell:
  • The scientific consensus is that global warming is bad news.
  • Nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news.
  • Moreover, financial incentives are in favor of maintaining the status quo
  • Therefore, if the scientists were inclined to lie about global warming, they'd tend to downplay it, not overhype it.
Because of this, to reject the scientific consensus is to claim that either (a) the vast majority of climate scientists are incompetent, or (b) the vast majority of climate scientists have some sort of ulterior motive to join in a conspiracy to lie in the other direction. Either of these is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence to support -- evidence of which everyone so far has completely and utterly failed to provide even the slightest shred.

So then, music lover and moonshadow, put up or shut up! Either prove this vast cabal of evil scientists exists, or admit that you're grasping at straws because you can't handle the truth.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 01:10:09 PM by Jack »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #153 on: November 13, 2015, 02:47:10 PM »
This is a red herring argument, because if the sea's rise as predicted by the climate models, it will take at least a century.  Slow moving & predictable problems are not difficult to manage, and municipal infrastructure must be rebuilt or otherwise replaced on a shorter time frame than a century anyway.  In three generations time, the coastal populations of Jakarta & Bangladesh can walk to Southern Siberia to take advantage of the mass area of undeveloped landspace that would have become viable farmland as a direct result of climate change, using predictions from those same climate models.  The net effect of a 3 or 4 degree C increase in global temps, for humanity, is actually unknown.

So global warming is predictable now, which means (a) you admit that it exists, and (b) you agree that humanity needs to do something about it? Then we agree, so WTF are we arguing about?
I never did deny that the climate is changing, I question the many other assumptions that lead to a general freak out about the future.  There are many other facts that are ignored in this debate, such as...

The climate has been warmer in the distant past than it is today, and yet the Earth doesn't resemble Venus.  Amazingly there is life on it.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, oxygen & nitrogen have been both higher and lower than they are today. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event)

Ocean levels have been both higher, and lower, then they are today.  And not necessarily due to climate change, sometimes simply due to topography. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood)

Plantlife evolved in an environment with a much higher CO2 concentration than is present today, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration) and modern testing has shown that increases in CO2 is beneficial for plant growth till at least 10%, or 100,000 parts per million.

Tests have also shown that such high concentrations of CO2, while not exactly comfortable or healthy, is not toxic to human life; and it's not uncommon for well insulated & sealed indoor environments to have CO2 concentrations above 3% without humans noticing, so long as the oxygen levels are correct.

Increased CO2 concentrations in the immediate atmosphere of plants, over an extended period of time, permits the plants to alter their respiration to become much more water efficient.  So a warming planet, even while dryer, could actually be a greener one overall.
(http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108)
Quote
(One of the most consistent effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants is an increase in the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation by leaves. Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis, but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the degree of stomatal opening (related to a measure known as stomatal conductance) as a compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of water loss. As CO2 concentrations increase, plants can maintain high photosynthetic rates with relatively low stomatal conductance. Across a variety of FACE experiments, growth under elevated CO2 decreases stomatal conductance of water by an average of 22% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). This would be expected to decrease overall plant water use, although the magnitude of the overall effect of CO2 will depend on how it affects other determinants of plant water use, such as plant size, morphology, and leaf temperature. Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009).

A warming planet, even if the ice caps do actually melt and flood coastal cities, will have a net positive effect on the total acres of habitable landmass worldwide.

The entire mass of fossil fuels; coal, oil, natural gas, etc; was derived from the decayed mass of ancient plantlife.  Plants get their CO2 from the air.  Therefore, logically, all of that carbon was part of our atmosphere at some point in the past, before it was sequestered into the Earth.

The predicted average temp increases, due to how the greenhouse gas effect actually works, would not be evenly distributed.  While the average prediction of 3 to 4 C worldwide sounds scary, particularly to people who already live in warm locations, the actual expectation is that the poles would warm up significantly, and the equator regions only slightly; with latitudes in between receiving increases somewhere in between.

The above are facts.  I could cite all of them for you, but if you are actually interested in the truth of the matter, google works as well for you as it does for me.

So these other facts bring up their own questions that need answering.  Would another doubling of CO2 (to 800 ppm) result in a net decline or a net increase, in agricultural productivity, or no effect at all?  Would such a doubling of CO2 result in shrinkage of the world's deserts, since more plantlife would be able to survive on less water along the edges of those desert regions?  Would a significant warming in the great northern regions of the Canadian Northwest Passage islands & Russian Siberia be beneficial to humankind?  And would the tropical regions even notice the climate change, beyond a generational change in the sea level?  If we stopped using fossil fuels today, would humanity be better off next year, next decade or next century as a result?

None of these questions are easily answered, and they do matter.

Quote
Make sure you inform the denialists, because if we want a hundred-million South Asians to walk to Siberia, they'd better get moving now. (And we'd better get started trying to convince Putin to accept them!)
You know that was an example of the relative ease of solving this kind of slow moving problem, not a particular recommendation.  Human kind has much more immediate problems to manage than climate change; such as world poverty, malaria, child mortality due to many causes such as poor water access or quality.  That list is long, yet the greatest amount of human time, energy and capital is being diverted into the study of, and argument over, whether or not humans effect their climate.  Of course we do, it's part of what we are.  Arguing over exactly how & to what degree we actually do so is futile.  We are going to do it anyway.  Railing about perceived harms caused along the way is akin to complaining that poop stinks.  The best you can expect is to teach others how to safely manage that poop, so that it's effect on the environment is limited, not bitch that they keep doing it.  However, you don't really know how to septic system for CO2, and no one even really knows if it will be necessary; so all you can do is stand on your soapbox and cry, "the sky is falling!"  No, it's not; and even if it is, you're not really helping.
Quote
Besides that, you're wrong on multiple counts:
  • Yes, infrastructure needs maintenance, but not all of it (or even most of it!) gets replaced over that period of time. The Empire State Building, for example, is almost 85 years old, and nobody's planning to tear it down and rebuild anytime soon. They're not about to fill in the London Underground and start over, either. Major civil engineering projects (other than roads and cheap bridges, maybe) are generally built to last, and only get replaced when they become functionally obsolete or get destroyed in a disaster.

I'm speaking of average replacement cycles, not specific examples of long lived engineering.  Even so, while those are fine examples of major engineering projects designed to last for a long time, they all have massive maintenance programs.  If you consider the labor & resources continually invested into those examples, all of them could have been completely replaced at least once.  And I was guessing long, too.  Most projects have maintenance schedules that would have completely replaced themselves in much shorter timeframes, particularly anything that is near saltwater.  Bridges are famous for their need for regular maintenance, and they are just standing structures.
Quote

speaking of disasters: contrary to music lover's yet-another-erroneous-comment

I'm not defending Music Lover, he can do fine on his own.  Try and focus, Jack.
Quote


Third, I was flippant about it at the top of this post, but it's a serious (and potentially intractable) problem: if half of Bangladesh really did try to migrate to Siberia, it would cause World War III. That alone makes your whole proposal a non-solution.

Again, that wasn't an actual proposal.  And I think it's rather sad you didn't already understand that.
Quote
Furthermore, a lot of the economy of Bangladesh is dependent upon their currently existing tidal shallows, which would only become more vast with a rising sea.

[Citation needed] (for both claims, but especially the latter)

Is your google-fu so weak?  Okay...

(http://www.thedailystar.net/agro-economy-of-coastal-bangladesh-51567)
Quote
The coastal zone has a significant place in the economy of Bangladesh. About 3.6 million hectares of coastal land constitute nearly 25% of the geographical area; according to 2011 Population Census (BPC) about 25% of the population live in the coastal region. The agriculture sector in the coastal region of Bangladesh is extremely important. The coastal belt is about 710 km. in length.

<...snip...>

The coastal belt plays a vital role in the national economy. We have the world famous mangrove forest (the Sundarbans) and two seaports -- Chittagong and Mongla -- in the region. Besides this, shrimp culture is an important activity in the region, and noticeably influences foreign currency earning. Despite having the potential to accelerate growth, the coastal belt of Bangladesh is one of the depressed, if not neglected, regions of the country. The backwardness of the region is creating inter-regional imbalance, causing confusion and frustration among the population living in this vibrant but volatile region....


Quote
And finally, a recent study published from NASA implies that the Antartic ice cap has actually been increasing in net volume over the past 20 or 30 years, with a calculated effect of about a quarter of a cm drop in the world's sea levels.

On the contrary, this is a red herring. (I read this article explaining the study.) First of all, the study measured area of sea ice, not volume of the total ice cap. They don't know to the same degree of certainty what the thickness is.

Second, the global net ice cap is still decreasing:
I'm fine with granting you that the ice might still be decreasing, despite conflicting reports on the matter.  That still doesn't contradict my argument.  Human beings have been affecting their environment for millennia, and we have proven pretty effective at it.  So the burden of proof is upon your side to show that this time is different.

EDIT: Whoops! Forgot to include this one...

http://www.economywatch.com/news/Coastal-Bangladesh-Agriculture-and-Ship-Salvaging.12-17-14.html

Quote
Reporting on the Bangladesh coastal zone is a topic that interests many. CBS’s 60 Minutes did a segment on the ship salvaging industry that occupies part of the country’s coast. Companies and countries across the world bring old ships here to tear them apart piece by piece. It is toxic nightmare, but it does employ thousands of workers. The water around the beaches is devastated because a country this poor cannot afford to worry about such things. Every part of the ship is recycled in some fashion or another.

The share of agricultural products contributing to GDP has fallen.  Greater agricultural productivity, however, means Bangladesh is taking steps to become food self-sufficient. Economists note that both crop cultivation and other methods to obtain food, such as paddy cultivation in the coastal zone, are seeing increases.

Hopefully, the increases in coastal agriculture, such as rice paddys; are not occurring close to the tidal zones that permit the ship breaking industry.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 03:28:59 PM by MoonShadow »

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #154 on: November 13, 2015, 02:52:03 PM »
I haven't been keeping track of the exact number, but this is only one (relatively minor) instance out of many in which you've been arguing disingenuously and in bad faith by misrepresenting what you previously claimed. For that reason, I feel justified in telling you to fuck off.

Really?? I already provided proof that bad weather has decreased, verified by NOAA data. What did you do? You chose to ignore it and instead told me to fuck off. That's real mature, Jack.

If the NOAA data I provided was wrong, PROVE IT. I want actual proof, not unverifiable predictions based on failed computer models.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #155 on: November 13, 2015, 04:48:16 PM »
First of all, I notice that you're pivoting and deflecting, desperately avoiding my challenge. I repeat: the scientific consensus is that global warming is actually a net negative for humanity. If you think they're incompetent, you have to prove it. If you think they're lying, you have to prove it.

Otherwise, there's not even the slightest reason to give a shit about any of your objections, because the experts have almost certainly collectively already taken every single one of them into account!

I never did deny that the climate is changing, I question the many other assumptions that lead to a general freak out about the future.  There are many other facts that are ignored in this debate, such as...

<list of irrelevant facts>

The above are facts.  I could cite all of them for you, but if you are actually interested in the truth of the matter, google works as well for you as it does for me.

First of all, I'm happy to acknowledge those facts (except one, below). The trouble (for your argument) is that the climate conditions in the depths of geologic time don't matter. What matters is the climate conditions that are convenient for modern civilization, which is a lot more fragile than life in general, or even human life in general. Nobody's trying to claim global warming will destroy all life on the planet, or even homo sapiens as a species. What they're claiming is that it's going to cost a fuck-ton of money, and cause a fuck-ton of human suffering, for civilization to cope with it.

I do have to call this "fact" out, though, because it's wrong:
The entire mass of fossil fuels; coal, oil, natural gas, etc; was derived from the decayed mass of ancient plantlife.  Plants get their CO2 from the air.  Therefore, logically, all of that carbon was part of our atmosphere at some point in the past, before it was sequestered into the Earth.

The carbon cycle includes more than just atmospheric CO2, biomass, and fossil fuels. It also includes carbonates, CO2 dissolved in the ocean, methane clathrate, etc. The idea that, at some point in the past, there might have been enough CO2 in the atmosphere to equal the carbon found in the sum of all fossil fuel deposits could be true for all I know, but your statement is not sufficient to prove it.

So these other facts bring up their own questions that need answering.  Would another doubling of CO2 (to 800 ppm) result in a net decline or a net increase, in agricultural productivity, or no effect at all?  Would such a doubling of CO2 result in shrinkage of the world's deserts, since more plantlife would be able to survive on less water along the edges of those desert regions?  Would a significant warming in the great northern regions of the Canadian Northwest Passage islands & Russian Siberia be beneficial to humankind?  And would the tropical regions even notice the climate change, beyond a generational change in the sea level?  If we stopped using fossil fuels today, would humanity be better off next year, next decade or next century as a result?

None of these questions are easily answered, and they do matter.

What, and you don't think scientists consider these things before writing their reports?

Again, the claim that the vast majority of climate scientists are incompetent is an extraordinary one, which requires extraordinary evidence to support.

You know that was an example of the relative ease of solving this kind of slow moving problem, not a particular recommendation.  Human kind has much more immediate problems to manage than climate change; such as world poverty, malaria, child mortality due to many causes such as poor water access or quality.

I'm amused that you cite malaria as something to worry about more than global warming, since global warming increases the spread of malaria. Ditto with poor water access or quality, considering that droughts cause water shortages and floods destroy water treatment facilities.

That list is long, yet the greatest amount of human time, energy and capital is being diverted into the study of, and argument over, whether or not humans effect their climate.  Of course we do, it's part of what we are.  Arguing over exactly how & to what degree we actually do so is futile.  We are going to do it anyway.  Railing about perceived harms caused along the way is akin to complaining that poop stinks.  The best you can expect is to teach others how to safely manage that poop, so that it's effect on the environment is limited, not bitch that they keep doing it.  However, you don't really know how to septic system for CO2, and no one even really knows if it will be necessary; so all you can do is stand on your soapbox and cry, "the sky is falling!"  No, it's not; and even if it is, you're not really helping.

You've got to be kidding me. This has so many different fallacies rolled into it that it's self-contradictory, and I'm having trouble even disentangling it enough to enumerate them all. You're somehow trying to pretend to agree with me, accuse me of being the problem, then argue for the position you just finished repudiating all at once. It's masterfully incoherent; congratulations!

Instead of going through it piece-by-piece, I'll just ask you this: don't you realize that I wouldn't have to "stand on my soapbox" if people like you weren't grasping at every excuse you could find, no matter how flimsy, to avoid action? (And by the way, the idea that we "don't know how to septic system for CO2" is patently absurd; at the very least, we could certainly (metaphorically speaking) start shitting less!)

I mean, sure, if you want to declare this argument over and move on to a discussion about what concrete actions we need to take to fix the CO2 problem, then I'm all for it! But that's clearly not what you want. Instead, you want me to go away so you can keep pretending that maintaining the status-quo is an acceptable solution.


I'm speaking of average replacement cycles, not specific examples of long lived engineering.  Even so, while those are fine examples of major engineering projects designed to last for a long time, they all have massive maintenance programs.  If you consider the labor & resources continually invested into those examples, all of them could have been completely replaced at least once.  And I was guessing long, too.  Most projects have maintenance schedules that would have completely replaced themselves in much shorter timeframes, particularly anything that is near saltwater.  Bridges are famous for their need for regular maintenance, and they are just standing structures.

Those were typical examples, not exceptions. All the other skyscrapers in the world (except for the World Trade Center, for obvious reasons) should last just as long, barring flaws in their construction or being demolished to build even bigger ones on the same spot. Similarly, most other kinds of infrastructure (with the notable exceptions of roads and bridges, as I did in fact mention before), is also designed for the long haul.

And yes, they do have massive maintenance programs. But even so, rebuilding them from scratch would be an even more massive undertaking.

Quote
Furthermore, a lot of the economy of Bangladesh is dependent upon their currently existing tidal shallows, which would only become more vast with a rising sea.

[Citation needed] (for both claims, but especially the latter)

Is your google-fu so weak?  Okay...

(http://www.thedailystar.net/agro-economy-of-coastal-bangladesh-51567)
Quote
The coastal zone has a significant place in the economy of Bangladesh. About 3.6 million hectares of coastal land constitute nearly 25% of the geographical area; according to 2011 Population Census (BPC) about 25% of the population live in the coastal region. The agriculture sector in the coastal region of Bangladesh is extremely important. The coastal belt is about 710 km. in length.

<...snip...>

The coastal belt plays a vital role in the national economy. We have the world famous mangrove forest (the Sundarbans) and two seaports -- Chittagong and Mongla -- in the region. Besides this, shrimp culture is an important activity in the region, and noticeably influences foreign currency earning. Despite having the potential to accelerate growth, the coastal belt of Bangladesh is one of the depressed, if not neglected, regions of the country. The backwardness of the region is creating inter-regional imbalance, causing confusion and frustration among the population living in this vibrant but volatile region....

You failed to support the second claim: that Bangladesh's tidal shallows "would only become more vast with a rising sea." The extent of the tidal shallows could either increase or decrease, depending on the topography (e.g. whether the area above current sea level has a steeper or shallower slope than the area below, whether the coastline is concave or convex, etc.).

Quote
Human beings have been affecting their environment for millennia, and we have proven pretty effective at it.  So the burden of proof is upon your side to show that this time is different.

First of all, this is like arguing that a neolithic camp fire is equivalent to a thermonuclear bomb, or that a guy with a fishing rod is equivalent to a global fleet of fishing ships armed with gigantic long-lines and purse-seine nets. Even if the conclusion were true, it would only be by coincidence because it does not logically follow from the premise!

Second, the scientists have proven it; you just deny it and ignore it even though most of the people in this thread have been citing various aspects of it over and over and over. Again, your argument is effectively that the scientists are either incompetent or lying, which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

I haven't been keeping track of the exact number, but this is only one (relatively minor) instance out of many in which you've been arguing disingenuously and in bad faith by misrepresenting what you previously claimed. For that reason, I feel justified in telling you to fuck off.

Really?? I already provided proof that bad weather has decreased, verified by NOAA data. What did you do? You chose to ignore it and instead told me to fuck off. That's real mature, Jack.

If the NOAA data I provided was wrong, PROVE IT. I want actual proof, not unverifiable predictions based on failed computer models.

Yet again, you misrepresent your claims (and the claims of others)

First of all, you did not "provide proof that bad weather has decreased, verified by NOAA data." You previously claimed that "the US has just passed the 10 year mark, which is the longest in its recorded history, without a level 3 or higher hurricane." and that "Tornadoes are also down." Do you see what you did there? Like the proverbial fisherman bragging about the size of his catch, you exaggerated your claim in the re-telling.

Second, you say that as if tornadoes [in the US, presumably] and category-3 or higher hurricanes [making landfall in the US, presumably] somehow constituted the entirety of weather! Apparently in your mind, droughts, floods, blizzards, heat waves, straight-line windstorms -- and oh, by the way, all types of weather, including tropical cyclones and tornadoes, on the entire rest of the planet -- are somehow irrelevant!

Third, even the entirety of "bad weather" had decreased over some particular time period, that still fails to somehow "disprove" global warming and/or the problems of excess CO2, both because a chaotic system like weather is subject to anomalous behavior (just like the economy has bubbles), and because global warming has other important effects, such as ocean acidification, ice-cap melting, changes in ocean currents, etc.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #156 on: November 13, 2015, 06:57:46 PM »
First of all, I notice that you're pivoting and deflecting, desperately avoiding my challenge. I repeat: the scientific consensus is that global warming is actually a net negative for humanity.

This is a falsehood.  The scientific consensus is that the global climate is warming, and some non-negligible amount of that warming is a direct or indirect result of human activity.  There is no scientific consensus regarding what that actually means long term, nor if the net result will be negative, positive or negligible.  What you believe, and it is just a belief, is that the opinions of political activists and/or the predictions of computer models are an accurate description of what the future holds.  But as the great Yogi Berra once said; predictions are hard, especially about the future.
Quote
If you think they're incompetent, you have to prove it. If you think they're lying, you have to prove it.
Obviously, I do not.  If your goal is to show that your worldview is the correct one, it is incumbent upon yourself to show that.  I will readily admit that I could be wrong about a great many things, but that still would not mean that you are correct.  It's the alarmists that wish to force great change upon our societies in an attempt to avoid a claimed catastrophe, so it's up to them to actually prove that the risk justifies the changes.  It's also not a black or white issue.  Catastrophe or status quo are not the only possible outcomes.
Quote
Otherwise, there's not even the slightest reason to give a shit about any of your objections, because the experts have almost certainly collectively already taken every single one of them into account!
I'm quite certain that you don't give a shit about my objections anyway.  You argue this topic only because I have questioned your religious dogma, and this causes an unexplainable hostility within yourself, compelling you to lash out at strings of letters you find on an obscure forum on the Internet.  Now that I have pointed that out to you, you will rationally realize that this is illogical behavior, but you still can't stop and you don't know why.  It's called cognitive dissonance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Quote
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values

Quote
I never did deny that the climate is changing, I question the many other assumptions that lead to a general freak out about the future.  There are many other facts that are ignored in this debate, such as...

<list of irrelevant facts>

The above are facts.  I could cite all of them for you, but if you are actually interested in the truth of the matter, google works as well for you as it does for me.

First of all, I'm happy to acknowledge those facts (except one, below). The trouble (for your argument) is that the climate conditions in the depths of geologic time don't matter.

Okay.  But why?  Because you don't think they are relevant?  Again, why?  It's still incumbent upon you to show why my facts do not have bearing on the present issue under debate. 

Quote
What matters is the climate conditions that are convenient for modern civilization, which is a lot more fragile than life in general, or even human life in general.

I can show that isn't under threat, but if I were to leave it as a given that climate change is not sufficiently 'convenient' for modern civilization, how is that important?  I feel like a philosophy teacher here.  The conditions under which civilizations across time have developed varied greatly; from semi-arid desert regions to the coastal plains of Iceland.  The human species is incredibly adaptable, and that is one reason we have a history of affecting our environment, because we do so to increase our comfort.  That's also why we use fossil fuels today.  And that said, history shows us that the human animal prefers a warmer climate to a colder one.  Show me how a 10 C degree rise in Iceland or a half degree rise in Texas an intractable problem for a pre-industrial society, much less a modern one; for my intuition tells me that 0.5 C in Texas wouldn't likely be noticed, but a 10 C rise in Iceland would be a huge boon for Icelanders overall.
Quote

 Nobody's trying to claim global warming will destroy all life on the planet, or even homo sapiens as a species.
Maybe you're not, but some people are.  Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that these extremists don't matter, either.  Some of them are on the IPCC panel.
Quote
What they're claiming is that it's going to cost a fuck-ton of money, and cause a fuck-ton of human suffering, for civilization to cope with it.
Okay, sure.  I can see that as a possibility.  (Not a particularly likely one, but possible)  Let's assume that is the case.  Will it be more costly, in either actual wealth or human suffering, than the top 10 deadliest diseases that still exist in the world today?  What about just the top 10 causes of childhood death?  Even if I accept the given that the costs to humanity will be great, it is still not self evident that is the greatest, nor the most pressing, cause of human suffering in the world today.
Quote

I do have to call this "fact" out, though, because it's wrong:
The entire mass of fossil fuels; coal, oil, natural gas, etc; was derived from the decayed mass of ancient plantlife.  Plants get their CO2 from the air.  Therefore, logically, all of that carbon was part of our atmosphere at some point in the past, before it was sequestered into the Earth.

The carbon cycle includes more than just atmospheric CO2, biomass, and fossil fuels. It also includes carbonates, CO2 dissolved in the ocean, methane clathrate, etc. The idea that, at some point in the past, there might have been enough CO2 in the atmosphere to equal the carbon found in the sum of all fossil fuel deposits could be true for all I know, but your statement is not sufficient to prove it.

Perhaps I didn't prove it, because it's already a fact upon it's own, and you could have found that out with a little google-fu.  The carbon cycle isn't the source of fossil fuels, decayed vegetation is.  Also, I didn't claim that all that carbon was in the air at the same time, only that it was all in the air before it was in the ground in the form of a fossil fuel.  We don't burn carbonate rock, as a rule.

Quote
So these other facts bring up their own questions that need answering.  Would another doubling of CO2 (to 800 ppm) result in a net decline or a net increase, in agricultural productivity, or no effect at all?  Would such a doubling of CO2 result in shrinkage of the world's deserts, since more plantlife would be able to survive on less water along the edges of those desert regions?  Would a significant warming in the great northern regions of the Canadian Northwest Passage islands & Russian Siberia be beneficial to humankind?  And would the tropical regions even notice the climate change, beyond a generational change in the sea level?  If we stopped using fossil fuels today, would humanity be better off next year, next decade or next century as a result?

None of these questions are easily answered, and they do matter.

What, and you don't think scientists consider these things before writing their reports?


Some, of course.  But the articles written about their studies & reports don't really factor in their contemplations, do they?  Nor does the political movement that cites these articles as support consider the mitigating factors that actual scientists must, as a matter of ethical research, consider.  Al I see is 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' from the activist front.  It's not really in their interests to acknowledge that there might be mitigating factors at all.  It's mostly a political movement, not a scientific one; otherwise it wouldn't be marching along at it's current pace.  True scientific discovery moves at a glacial pace, if you'll pardon the pun.
Quote
Again, the claim that the vast majority of climate scientists are incompetent is an extraordinary one, which requires extraordinary evidence to support.
I have not made that claim.  Focus, Jack.
Quote
You know that was an example of the relative ease of solving this kind of slow moving problem, not a particular recommendation.  Human kind has much more immediate problems to manage than climate change; such as world poverty, malaria, child mortality due to many causes such as poor water access or quality.

I'm amused that you cite malaria as something to worry about more than global warming, since global warming increases the spread of malaria. Ditto with poor water access or quality, considering that droughts cause water shortages and floods destroy water treatment facilities.

Malaria could have been wiped from the face of the Earth by now, if not for bad representations of science leading to significant changes in public policy and law.  DDT remains the most effective tool towards that end, but it's banned in almost every nation in Africa due to US trade policies.  If the expansion of sub-tropical regions across the Earth frightens you, you really should get a yellow fever vaccine.  If that one ever makes a comeback, it would make malaria look like a mild flu for the cost in human suffering.

And to the claim about access to quality water, who said that municipal water treatment facilities are the only solution?  They were big 100 years ago because they had to be; today, such treatment facilities can fit into a standard Amazon shipping box.  (https://app.etapestry.com/cart/WaterStep/default/item.php?ref=1140.0.5748931)  I don't expect that the solutions to the problems of the future will even resemble the solutions to problems of the past.  Don't get caught in that mental box, I'll blow it up every time.

Quote

That list is long, yet the greatest amount of human time, energy and capital is being diverted into the study of, and argument over, whether or not humans effect their climate.  Of course we do, it's part of what we are.  Arguing over exactly how & to what degree we actually do so is futile.  We are going to do it anyway.  Railing about perceived harms caused along the way is akin to complaining that poop stinks.  The best you can expect is to teach others how to safely manage that poop, so that it's effect on the environment is limited, not bitch that they keep doing it.  However, you don't really know how to septic system for CO2, and no one even really knows if it will be necessary; so all you can do is stand on your soapbox and cry, "the sky is falling!"  No, it's not; and even if it is, you're not really helping.

You've got to be kidding me. This has so many different fallacies rolled into it that it's self-contradictory, and I'm having trouble even disentangling it enough to enumerate them all. You're somehow trying to pretend to agree with me, accuse me of being the problem, then argue for the position you just finished repudiating all at once. It's masterfully incoherent; congratulations!


Don't blame me because you fell off the back of the bus.  I can only dumb this all down so much.

Quote
Instead of going through it piece-by-piece, I'll just ask you this: don't you realize that I wouldn't have to "stand on my soapbox" if people like you weren't grasping at every excuse you could find, no matter how flimsy, to avoid action?
You don't have to anyway.  That said, do you really think that you are going to affect change here on an obscure internet forum, dedicated to personal finance?  Particularly when it's so very easy to undermine your premises, and so easy to show that you aren't really trying to debate anyway.  You can't convince me of anything, because I already hold a middle ground position that you (personally, others might) can't seem to address on any rational level.
Quote
(And by the way, the idea that we "don't know how to septic system for CO2" is patently absurd; at the very least, we could certainly (metaphorically speaking) start shitting less!)
Metaphorically speaking, we probably could.  But the per capita consumption of energy has been shown to be directly correlated to the average life expectancy & general wealth & well being of a society.  So you are basically asking everyone to live less fulfilling lives.  Personal consumption is a private conviction, as said by Darth Vader Incarnate.  You have no right to force your private convictions upon others at the end of a gun, which is exactly what you advocate for by using government policy to achieve your end.  I will use as much or as little energy as I feel best, in whatever manner I feel best.  The only thing that you can do to reduce the future impact of climate change, as you see it, is to innovate with products that improve the human condition, but use less energy.  Invest in photovoltic solar research, start a bio-diesel company, etc.  You will never get traction telling other people how they should live their lives differently, show them a better way.

Quote
I mean, sure, if you want to declare this argument over and move on to a discussion about what concrete actions we need to take to fix the CO2 problem, then I'm all for it! But that's clearly not what you want. Instead, you want me to go away so you can keep pretending that maintaining the status-quo is an acceptable solution.
I think you have been confusing me with someone else again, Jack; I have done no such thing.  The 'status quo' will change without effort, once the need becomes self-evident; or perhaps peak oil will make your efforts moot for economic reasons.  Again, the human species is incredibly adept at managing their immediate environment.  I'm not saying that things won't change.  Things always change.  I'm saying that there will be solutions that neither of us can even imagine.  If you would like to have a conversation speculating about how that future of solutions might actually look, I'm game for that, but your attitude still tells me otherwise.  You are locked into a paradigm and you can't get out.
Quote

I'm speaking of average replacement cycles, not specific examples of long lived engineering.  Even so, while those are fine examples of major engineering projects designed to last for a long time, they all have massive maintenance programs.  If you consider the labor & resources continually invested into those examples, all of them could have been completely replaced at least once.  And I was guessing long, too.  Most projects have maintenance schedules that would have completely replaced themselves in much shorter timeframes, particularly anything that is near saltwater.  Bridges are famous for their need for regular maintenance, and they are just standing structures.

Those were typical examples, not exceptions. All the other skyscrapers in the world (except for the World Trade Center, for obvious reasons) should last just as long, barring flaws in their construction or being demolished to build even bigger ones on the same spot. Similarly, most other kinds of infrastructure (with the notable exceptions of roads and bridges, as I did in fact mention before), is also designed for the long haul.
I don't think you are following the logic.  Even long lived skyscrapers require great amounts of capital to keep maintained.  From an economic perspective, they are eventually replaced.
Quote
And yes, they do have massive maintenance programs. But even so, rebuilding them from scratch would be an even more massive undertaking.
More visable & more intensive in the short term, not more "massive" in any context of that term.  All that really has to happen is to decide to do it in the next several decades, and divert the resources away from the current infrastructure towards the planned infrastructure.  This is exactly what happens anyway, when infrastructure is deemed no longer viable for other reasons.  We do this kind of thing, as a society, all the time.  You just don't see it happening most of the time.  The average stretch of freeway is completely replaced every 9 years or so, as an example.  We know how to do this kind of thing these days, it's old hat in the industrial world.
Quote

Quote
Human beings have been affecting their environment for millennia, and we have proven pretty effective at it.  So the burden of proof is upon your side to show that this time is different.

First of all, this is like arguing that a neolithic camp fire is equivalent to a thermonuclear bomb, or that a guy with a fishing rod is equivalent to a global fleet of fishing ships armed with gigantic long-lines and purse-seine nets. Even if the conclusion were true, it would only be by coincidence because it does not logically follow from the premise!


I question that you understood what you just wrote.  Where did you find that little tidbit?  I'm not the one with a premise to support, btw.
Quote
Second, the scientists have proven it; you just deny it and ignore it even though most of the people in this thread have been citing various aspects of it over and over and over. Again, your argument is effectively that the scientists are either incompetent or lying, which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
When did scientists prove that humanity isn't capable of adapting to climate change?  Seriously, I'd like to see that proof.  Beyond that, I don't have a premise.  The burden remains upon yourself.  You have made no acknowledgement of your part in this "debate", and I expect that you're not mentally up to the task.  Does the cognitive dissonance actually hurt?

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #157 on: November 18, 2015, 08:50:42 AM »
This coming from a conservative who actually works in the field of climate change research.

Don't forget this key element of almost all climate skepticism discussions: being qualified and informed makes you biased and therefore untrustworthy. The pattern I see emerging is (unfortunately) similar to the vaccine debate in which data and statistics drive the skeptics further and further into their entrenched burrows. It is really quite maddening.

 

I understand the line of attack but it is SO without merit. A rational person suffering from cancer would seek the opinion of cancer specialists rather than actively seek contrary opinions. Maybe folks don't understand that success in a science-based field (whether basic, applied or very applied (e.g. computer science, civil engineering)) isn't dependent on drinking the kool-aid.

By saying conservative, I was also trying to make the point that scientific findings are apolitical. That a liberal environmentalist rejects climate change has the same impact that a tea partier rejects climate change. To the OP, So what? Did you hear that socialists reject gravity?!

I like the cancer patient argument. I am not an expert on climate change. However, I have worked at 4 different Universities and have worked with some Geologists on climate change projects. It is very difficult to find a Geologist at a University that does not believe in man-made climate change.

I also agree that real research findings are apolitical. There is such a thing as fake journals that are supported by corporations. Most people cannot tell the difference  between a fake journal that only has a website and a real journal that is indexed at University Libraries.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #158 on: November 21, 2015, 02:51:32 PM »
This coming from a conservative who actually works in the field of climate change research.

Don't forget this key element of almost all climate skepticism discussions: being qualified and informed makes you biased and therefore untrustworthy. The pattern I see emerging is (unfortunately) similar to the vaccine debate in which data and statistics drive the skeptics further and further into their entrenched burrows. It is really quite maddening.

 

I understand the line of attack but it is SO without merit. A rational person suffering from cancer would seek the opinion of cancer specialists rather than actively seek contrary opinions. Maybe folks don't understand that success in a science-based field (whether basic, applied or very applied (e.g. computer science, civil engineering)) isn't dependent on drinking the kool-aid.

By saying conservative, I was also trying to make the point that scientific findings are apolitical. That a liberal environmentalist rejects climate change has the same impact that a tea partier rejects climate change. To the OP, So what? Did you hear that socialists reject gravity?!

I like the cancer patient argument. I am not an expert on climate change. However, I have worked at 4 different Universities and have worked with some Geologists on climate change projects. It is very difficult to find a Geologist at a University that does not believe in man-made climate change.

I also agree that real research findings are apolitical. There is such a thing as fake journals that are supported by corporations. Most people cannot tell the difference  between a fake journal that only has a website and a real journal that is indexed at University Libraries.

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph was 100% funded by a university, so to suggest that only university funded research studies are valid is laughable.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #159 on: November 21, 2015, 06:26:33 PM »
This coming from a conservative who actually works in the field of climate change research.

Don't forget this key element of almost all climate skepticism discussions: being qualified and informed makes you biased and therefore untrustworthy. The pattern I see emerging is (unfortunately) similar to the vaccine debate in which data and statistics drive the skeptics further and further into their entrenched burrows. It is really quite maddening.

 

I understand the line of attack but it is SO without merit. A rational person suffering from cancer would seek the opinion of cancer specialists rather than actively seek contrary opinions. Maybe folks don't understand that success in a science-based field (whether basic, applied or very applied (e.g. computer science, civil engineering)) isn't dependent on drinking the kool-aid.

By saying conservative, I was also trying to make the point that scientific findings are apolitical. That a liberal environmentalist rejects climate change has the same impact that a tea partier rejects climate change. To the OP, So what? Did you hear that socialists reject gravity?!

I like the cancer patient argument. I am not an expert on climate change. However, I have worked at 4 different Universities and have worked with some Geologists on climate change projects. It is very difficult to find a Geologist at a University that does not believe in man-made climate change.

I also agree that real research findings are apolitical. There is such a thing as fake journals that are supported by corporations. Most people cannot tell the difference  between a fake journal that only has a website and a real journal that is indexed at University Libraries.

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph was 100% funded by a university, so to suggest that only university funded research studies are valid is laughable.

But that is not what he said. "university  indexed" and "university funded" are not the same thing. Also, nice try at a non-sequitur.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #160 on: November 22, 2015, 10:42:16 AM »
But that is not what he said. "university  indexed" and "university funded" are not the same thing. Also, nice try at a non-sequitur.

Whatever. The same mindset prevails...all government/university studies or reports are as pure as the driven snow with only the public's best interests in mind, while any corporate study has an anti-green agenda. There is no middle ground and no room for discussion, is there?

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #161 on: November 22, 2015, 11:03:48 AM »
But that is not what he said. "university  indexed" and "university funded" are not the same thing. Also, nice try at a non-sequitur.

Whatever. The same mindset prevails...all government/university studies or reports are as pure as the driven snow with only the public's best interests in mind, while any corporate study has an anti-green agenda. There is no middle ground and no room for discussion, is there?

The research:
- Conducted in university settings funded by government research dollars the world over strongly supports the conclusions that we are adversely impacting the climate. (many links above)
- Research conducted by oil companies and funded by oil companies supports the conclusion that we are adversely impacting the climate. (many links above)
- Reviews of best available research funded by the Koch brothers, and conducted by respected scientists that had self-identified as skeptical concluded that we are adversely impacting the climate. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0   (and also linked somewhere above)
- Insurance companies are adjusting their future projections based on their review of climate change science.
- The Pentagon cites climate change as one of the biggest threats to our national security.

You know who disagrees with the climate skeptics? The majority of people who have honestly and deeply delved into the science, and the people who have to make tough and often unpopular decisions based on the best available information.

We are not claiming that *actual research* conducted by companies is biased rubbish. We do however claim that the purposeful, well-documented campaigns of misinformation are bullshit.

As to the majority of your posts above: finding one element of the science that has a trend that can be viewed as positive, isolating it and using it to make broad arguments about the state of the science or how climate change impacts will be felt is either willfully disingenuous or reveals a true lack of understanding of the science (which is complicated).

I'm done with this thread.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #162 on: November 22, 2015, 12:22:06 PM »
Quote from: Glenstache link=topic=45193.msg879512#msg879512
We do however claim that the purposeful, well-documented campaigns of misinformation are bullshit.

On that we agree. You simply refuse to acknowledge that any bullshit comes from your side.

Despite receiving a subpoena from the House of Representatives, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) continues to defy the summons to explain itself regarding a controversial climate study it had released back in June.

It's the same old bullshit: "nothing to see, move along".

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #163 on: December 09, 2015, 07:54:24 AM »
I think its all moot anyway, I agree with Jeremy E--nuclear is the way of the future.  We'll be forced to turn to turn to nuclear perhaps in 200-300 years.

I like the idea of moving more towards nuclear power, but there just isn't enough fissionable material for this to be a realistic option.  For example, at our current rate of consumption there is about 80 years of Uranium left to use.  If we scale that up to current world demand, there's less than 5 years worth of the stuff (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html).  It's possible that some of the fuel can be recycled, but current recycling recovers only about 30% of the uranium used (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/).

In 200-300 years nuclear likely will not be an option.

check out Pandora's Promise. It was on netflix and was well done. Havent gotten a chance to fact check yet.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #164 on: December 09, 2015, 08:40:07 AM »
Quote from: Glenstache link=topic=45193.msg879512#msg879512
We do however claim that the purposeful, well-documented campaigns of misinformation are bullshit.

Despite receiving a subpoena from the House of Representatives, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) continues to defy the summons to explain itself regarding a controversial climate study it had released back in June.


What is controversial about it? The data itself (used in the research) is publicly and widely available. The subpoena is for internal communications. Lamar Smith himself has admitted to only reading the "summaries" presented by the culmination of the research of 800 scientist.


Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #165 on: December 09, 2015, 08:43:27 PM »
And, with the COP21 going on, yet another reminder of how freaking ridiculous the American phenomenon of climate change deniers is:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/458930580/rest-of-the-world-perplexed-that-climate-debate-continues-in-u-s

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #166 on: December 09, 2015, 11:23:21 PM »
And, with the COP21 going on, yet another reminder of how freaking ridiculous the American phenomenon of climate change deniers is:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/458930580/rest-of-the-world-perplexed-that-climate-debate-continues-in-u-s
And yet the US has been more successful at GHG emission reductions than Canada, Australia or the EU. USA! USA! Winning despite ignorance. :)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #167 on: December 09, 2015, 11:29:00 PM »
And, with the COP21 going on, yet another reminder of how freaking ridiculous the American phenomenon of climate change deniers is:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/458930580/rest-of-the-world-perplexed-that-climate-debate-continues-in-u-s

There was a research paper that was released last month, that largely concluded that the lifetime atmospheric persistence of CO2 was highly dependent upon the relative concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, instead of being largely constant, as has been assumed by all climate models since at least 2006.  The paper concluded that, as the concentration of CO2 increases, the rate that biological 'sinks' on land and on sea remove it also increases; and that that rate increases exponentially, not linearly.  I sent a link to the paper to Sol about a week ago, asking him to comment upon it, but he never responded to me.  The short version is that, at the pre-industrial revolution concentration of about 240 ppm, the rate of biological removal of CO2 was low enough that a small increase in the ppm could persist for about a 1000 years; and that is the general number used by climate models.  This new data, if it proves accurate, shows that at 400 ppm (the current number), the persistence is only about 40 years.  Basically, if we stopped contributing CO2 to the atmosphere right now (not going to happen, but let's imagine), the measurable ppm would start to decline after about 4 decades.  It would also imply that, and our current rate of CO2 emissions, we are unlikely to be able to get to 500 ppm, ever.

As you can imagine, I found the paper published on a 'denier' website, but feel free to assess the paper, to the best of your ability, on it's own merits.  When you are done, please let me know if the (scientific) debate is over.

http://defyccc.com/docs/se/MDACC-Halperin.pdf

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #168 on: December 10, 2015, 12:23:41 AM »
There was a research paper that was released last month....

Mathematical models, properly done, are wonderful things.  They allow testing of complex system interactions and help us understand how changes to inputs will affect various outputs.

That is, if they are good at predicting what will happen and not merely curve fit what has happened.  Even one graph of "Predicted atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 50 years" (assuming whatever the authors want to assume) would have been good.


MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #169 on: December 10, 2015, 07:08:04 AM »
Moonshadow, The IPCC uses 100 year decay rate, not 1000. In fact, the IPCC notes that there are multiple time scales, and you can’t reliably quote a single half-life. Decay isn’t exponential. 40 years is a good estimate of half life. Inevitably it would take roughly a century to return CO2 levels to around 300PPMV. Unfortunately, declines in agricultural yields would begin long before that. Mankind would miss the precious air fertilizer, a lot.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #170 on: December 10, 2015, 10:10:06 AM »
Moonshadow, The IPCC uses 100 year decay rate, not 1000. In fact, the IPCC notes that there are multiple time scales, and you can’t reliably quote a single half-life. Decay isn’t exponential. 40 years is a good estimate of half life. Inevitably it would take roughly a century to return CO2 levels to around 300PPMV. Unfortunately, declines in agricultural yields would begin long before that. Mankind would miss the precious air fertilizer, a lot.
This is true. I can't speak for IPCC, but EPA uses 100 year GWP (ratio of C gas forcing: CO2 forcing) for mostgases (CH4 is 20 yr GWP and CF4 is 50,000 yr GWP).

There was a research paper that was released last month, that largely concluded that the lifetime atmospheric persistence of CO2 was highly dependent upon the relative concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, instead of being largely constant, as has been assumed by all climate models since at least 2006.  The paper concluded that, as the concentration of CO2 increases, the rate that biological 'sinks' on land and on sea remove it also increases; and that that rate increases exponentially, not linearly.
Moonshadow, to +1 on BeginnerStache's comment, CO2e is not modeled by IPCC or EPA with the assumption that CO2 exponential decays without interacting with the land, sea or air. They both use the Bern cycle which is an empirical function whose values are derived by:
-Solving for the diffusion and mixing among low and high latitude, surface and deep water pools. Air-sea and tracer transport is solved for as well. The terrestrial component is included by representing flux across vegetation, wood, detritus and soil. The ocean, terrestial and atmospheric pools are coupled using an eddy transport model to account for interactions and dependencies. The Suess Effect has allowed thorough validation of the Bern cycle model.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 10:11:49 AM by JZinCO »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #171 on: December 10, 2015, 11:57:46 AM »
Okay.  So is the scientific debate really over then?  That was the point of posting a link to a research paper that I didn't understand. So many people, particularly on this forum, seem to believe that these details are already well known.  It's obvious to myself that this is not the case, and that the accuracy of the models are dependent upon the assumptions the programmers use for these variables.

And the paper, itself, referred to it as an exponential decline; that was not my interpretation.

Quote
Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at rate, proportional to the
surplus CO2 concentration.  In other words, it undergoes exponential decay with a single
decay constant.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #172 on: December 10, 2015, 12:14:36 PM »
And the paper, itself, referred to it as an exponential decline; that was not my interpretation.

Quote
Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at rate, proportional to the
surplus CO2 concentration.  In other words, it undergoes exponential decay with a single
decay constant.
Yeah,but it's wrong. Hence the IPCC and EPA do not use a simple exponential decay model.

Quote
In the simplest of worlds, the decay of a perturbation might follow first-order linear kinetics. Radioactive decay is an example of this. The resulting concentration trajectory through time will follow an exponential decay function. In this case the mean lifetime of the carbon atoms in the atmosphere is closely approximated by the “most of it goes away” criterion; the mean lifetime is in fact equal to the e-folding time scale, the time at which only 1/e, about 37%, of the original pulse remains. If fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere was expected to diminish according to linear kinetics, then it would be possible to calculate the lifetime simply using the present-day excess CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (about 100 ppm or 200 Pg C) and the natural uptake rate, currently about 2 Pg C / yr each into the oceans and into the land biosphere.

Quote
The most fundamental problem with the linear-kinetics formulation is that even the simplest atmosphere / ocean carbon cycle models decay to a different atmospheric CO2 level, higher than the concentration before the spike was released...In the real world, the leftover CO2 in the atmosphere after ocean invasion interacts with the land biosphere, and is taken up by pH-neutralization reactions with calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and the CaO component of igneous rocks. The time scales for these processes range from thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Keeling and Bacastow (1961) predicted that it would take at least 10,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to return to preindustrial levels....Clearly the linear approximation, using a single characteristic time scale for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, is a poor representation of the way we think the carbon cycle works.
Archer et al (2009) Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 37:117-134
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 12:17:42 PM by JZinCO »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #173 on: December 10, 2015, 12:27:04 PM »
And the paper, itself, referred to it as an exponential decline; that was not my interpretation.

Quote
Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at rate, proportional to the
surplus CO2 concentration.  In other words, it undergoes exponential decay with a single
decay constant.
Yeah,but it's wrong. Hence the IPCC and EPA do not use a simple exponential decay model.


Is it?  Are you sure?  Why?  Because another scientist disagrees with it?  Does that look like settled science to you?  Because that looks like an ongoing scientific debate to myself.

I'll be the first to say that I don't know which perspective is correct, or if either of them are.  Which one fits the data better?  Which one produces more accurate models?  I don't know that either, and neither do you.  Sol is a climate scientist, and he doesn't know.  And don't pretend that either the IPCC or the EPA are scientific organizations.  Both of them are political constructs, that claim a particular policy objective based upon a particular scientific interpretation.  So is NASA.  If those scientific interpretations are incorrect, or even questionable; their policy recommendations are suspect.  And they should be suspect, because what they propose to do about these scientific predictions is so detrimental to humankind in their own way, that they had better be right.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #174 on: December 10, 2015, 12:48:54 PM »
And the paper, itself, referred to it as an exponential decline; that was not my interpretation.

Quote
Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at rate, proportional to the
surplus CO2 concentration.  In other words, it undergoes exponential decay with a single
decay constant.
Yeah,but it's wrong. Hence the IPCC and EPA do not use a simple exponential decay model.


Is it?  Are you sure?  Why?  Because another scientist disagrees with it?  Does that look like settled science to you?  Because that looks like an ongoing scientific debate to myself.

I'll be the first to say that I don't know which perspective is correct, or if either of them are.  Which one fits the data better?  Which one produces more accurate models?  I don't know that either, and neither do you.  Sol is a climate scientist, and he doesn't know.  And don't pretend that either the IPCC or the EPA are scientific organizations.  Both of them are political constructs, that claim a particular policy objective based upon a particular scientific interpretation.  So is NASA.  If those scientific interpretations are incorrect, or even questionable; their policy recommendations are suspect.  And they should be suspect, because what they propose to do about these scientific predictions is so detrimental to humankind in their own way, that they had better be right.
I wouldn't infer that the author of the white paper is a scientist. I couldn't find one peer review article to his name.
The Bern model fits the data better. The Bern model produces more accurate results. I already said this before. The Bern model may not be the best model (there is honest discussion to be had there), but we know it is not a simple exponential decay model. I am not an atmospheric chemist. You got me there. I just develop greenhouse gas accounting models for terrestial systems. I also work for two scientists who have nobel peace prizes for their work on the IPCC.  The EPA's methods can be trusted to the extent that it is mandated to use best available science and incorporates thousands of peer review science articles.

Edit: Oh yeah, I also work on the EPA National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. So if you want to call my work not objective or scientific, I will call bullshit on that.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 01:21:55 PM by JZinCO »

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3789
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #175 on: December 10, 2015, 02:04:24 PM »
And the paper, itself, referred to it as an exponential decline; that was not my interpretation.

Quote
Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at rate, proportional to the
surplus CO2 concentration.  In other words, it undergoes exponential decay with a single
decay constant.
Yeah,but it's wrong. Hence the IPCC and EPA do not use a simple exponential decay model.


Is it?  Are you sure?  Why?  Because another scientist disagrees with it?  Does that look like settled science to you?  Because that looks like an ongoing scientific debate to myself.

I'll be the first to say that I don't know which perspective is correct, or if either of them are.  Which one fits the data better?  Which one produces more accurate models?  I don't know that either, and neither do you.  Sol is a climate scientist, and he doesn't know.  And don't pretend that either the IPCC or the EPA are scientific organizations.  Both of them are political constructs, that claim a particular policy objective based upon a particular scientific interpretation.  So is NASA.  If those scientific interpretations are incorrect, or even questionable; their policy recommendations are suspect.  And they should be suspect, because what they propose to do about these scientific predictions is so detrimental to humankind in their own way, that they had better be right.
I wouldn't infer that the author of the white paper is a scientist. I couldn't find one peer review article to his name.
The Bern model fits the data better. The Bern model produces more accurate results. I already said this before. The Bern model may not be the best model (there is honest discussion to be had there), but we know it is not a simple exponential decay model. I am not an atmospheric chemist. You got me there. I just develop greenhouse gas accounting models for terrestial systems. I also work for two scientists who have nobel peace prizes for their work on the IPCC.  The EPA's methods can be trusted to the extent that it is mandated to use best available science and incorporates thousands of peer review science articles.

Edit: Oh yeah, I also work on the EPA National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. So if you want to call my work not objective or scientific, I will call bullshit on that.

FYI, just following the links embedded within the paper by Ari Halperin, he admits on his own website that he's not a scientist. He's got a master's in mathematics, supposedly.

imaprogrammer

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #176 on: December 10, 2015, 02:11:39 PM »
Great discussion. For someone well versed on the topic, what is the general consensus on the negative effects that we can expect in our lifetime?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #177 on: December 10, 2015, 02:19:12 PM »

Edit: Oh yeah, I also work on the EPA National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. So if you want to call my work not objective or scientific, I will call bullshit on that.

I never intended to do any such thing, but you can be both objective & scientific, and if your givens are wrong, so still will be your conclusions.  I'm not even a 'denier', I can see the trend as well as anyone.  What I question is the hysterical conclusions & predictions, and the (quite obvious) political opportunists taking advantage of such hysteria to effect policy change.  Dramatic policy change.  What I see are watermelons advocating for huge regulatory oversight of entire economies based upon worst-first thinking of far-from-obvious scientific conclusions.  Watermelons because, while they may appear green on the outside, they are all red skin deep.  They will do great harm if they get their way, regardless of whether or not it's justified by the science; and in the long run, they will over-reach even whatever the worst case scenario could justify.

If you do, indeed, work for the EPA; I know you have experience with these watermelons.  I once worked for the US government as well.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #178 on: December 11, 2015, 05:21:17 AM »

 What I question is the hysterical conclusions & predictions, and the (quite obvious) political opportunists taking advantage of such hysteria to effect policy change.  Dramatic policy change. 

You seem less "confused" and more convinced that additional greenhouse gases and subsequent warming offer far more positives than negatives. Therefore, I am not convinced you have an open-mind. If that is the case this whole conversation is pointless and anything I link to will be hand waved away. Anywho, here you go. FYI, lot's of good links in the comments section.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #179 on: December 11, 2015, 12:22:38 PM »

 What I question is the hysterical conclusions & predictions, and the (quite obvious) political opportunists taking advantage of such hysteria to effect policy change.  Dramatic policy change. 

You seem less "confused" and more convinced that additional greenhouse gases and subsequent warming offer far more positives than negatives.

I'm not convinced of a net positive outcome, either.  I'm not convinced of anything, really. But I don't by the doom & gloom.  There have been Casandra's for most of human history; some have been largely correct, most have been completely wrong.  But I understand politics, and I understand people who are attracted to government 'service'.  Even those who start off with the best of intentions are corrupted eventually, if they stay long enough.  There are no exceptions.  So I find myself looking at the Watermelons and wonder, what is the hidden motive?  Anyone who looks at what is happening with a critical viewpoint can see where the agenda is taking us.  It's classic Baptists & Bootleggers political theory.  Who stands to gain?  The answer is most certainly not "everyone".  You can pick any political movement in the past 150 years, that had any degree of success at all, and I can tell you what the hidden motive was; because I benefit from hindsight.  We are all in the midst of this one, so I can't really see the agenda, but it's not about how hot the Earth may or may not get in 100 years.

Quote

Therefore, I am not convinced you have an open-mind.


I'm not convinced that you do either.  I'm pretty sure that none of you do, who choose to engage this topic on this forum.  That's not why I challenge the dogma when I find it.  I challenge it, for the benefit of those who may not yet have been exposed to other ideas about the matter.  To aid the quiet, free thinkers in their long slog through the fog of noise; even though I've never made it through myself.  I'm sure that you consider yourself an educated person, confident that you're perspectives are well informed by science & reasoning.  But you are just another moist robot, responding to a limited set of stimuli.  Just like me.  Do you believe what you do, because that is what you have been taught?  Well, of course; but by whom?  For what reason do your lessons, your programming; have more merit than my own?  Is it because your lessons were taught by a PhD?  Where did his lessons come from?  Is it turtles all the way down?

Such a debate is only pointless to those whose minds are already closed to other perspectives.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #180 on: December 11, 2015, 12:45:37 PM »

I'm not convinced of anything, really. But I don't by the doom & gloom.

Seems contradictory. If you don't "buy" the doom and gloom (as you call it), then you are indeed convinced everything will be ok. There will always be those who seek "profit" in every situation. Just like there is profit to seek in simply convincing you everything is ok and we shouldn't do anything.   

Quote

I'm not convinced that you do either.  I'm pretty sure that none of you do, who choose to engage this topic on this forum.  That's not why I challenge the dogma when I find it.  I challenge it, for the benefit of those who may not yet have been exposed to other ideas about the matter.  To aid the quiet, free thinkers in their long slog through the fog of noise; even though I've never made it through myself.  I'm sure that you consider yourself an educated person, confident that you're perspectives are well informed by science & reasoning.  But you are just another moist robot, responding to a limited set of stimuli.  Just like me.  Do you believe what you do, because that is what you have been taught?  Well, of course; but by whom?  For what reason do your lessons, your programming; have more merit than my own?  Is it because your lessons were taught by a PhD?  Where did his lessons come from?  Is it turtles all the way down?

Such a debate is only pointless to those whose minds are already closed to other perspectives.

I commented a whopping 3 times. Very short and to the point. You have absolutely no ideal what my perspective is, what my education is, what my background is, who "taught" me. Quite frankly you know nothing about me. Your assumption is obviously based on the fact that I am questioning you. At least we both agree this "debate" is pointless. Good luck in whatever you are looking for.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2
« Reply #181 on: December 11, 2015, 01:17:01 PM »

I'm not convinced of anything, really. But I don't by the doom & gloom.

Seems contradictory. If you don't "buy" the doom and gloom (as you call it), then you are indeed convinced everything will be ok.


Not convinced, but the human species has a long record of rapid adaptation to new conditions.  I'm betting on that trend.  I don't doubt that such general optimism won't work out for everyone. 

Quote
There will always be those who seek "profit" in every situation.

And profit itself is neither good nor bad, it's simply the motive.  That said, profit seeking players do taint the 'selfless' image of the climate change movement a bit, does it not?  The personal gain issue can be used to 'guide' the policy recommendations of just about any NGO towards the advantage of particular players; and that is (by definition) suboptimal for the world at large, not matter how accurately the science may be presented.  Or do you believe really believe that those people who work for those NGO's and government agencies are actually incorruptible?

Quote
I commented a whopping 3 times. Very short and to the point. You have absolutely no ideal what my perspective is, what my education is, what my background is, who "taught" me.


That's why I asked.  Did I ask an inappropriate question?

Quote

Quite frankly you know nothing about me.


Did I just get under your skin, Moist Robot?  That's a common symptom of cognitive dissonance.

Quote
Your assumption is obviously based on the fact that I am questioning you. At least we both agree this "debate" is pointless. Good luck in whatever you are looking for.

Yes, and your choice of wording is illustrative.  You were questioning me, not actually seeking answers to questions.  The distinction is subtle, but I did notice it.  You ask questions, because you seek to 'nudge' my thought patterns towards a particular direction.  As it becomes apparent to yourself that I'm not easily nudged, you decide that this is no longer a debate, and not worth your efforts.  I'm here saying that it never was a debate, at least not here.  Anyone who goes back to the start of this thread can see that there are very few posters who were seeking new understanding of actual issues.  At it's most civil, this thread is an example of what I talking about above; several groups of people trying to influence the perspectives of the other groups, none achieving their goals.  I don't consider that a debate, at least, but perhaps some might.  But that was never my goal.  I never did expect to change the opinions of people who already had one.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!