Our Present Course Leads to Certain Catastrophe

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



inimalist
A7ktYbVwr90



We have a decade to fix this: GO!

Digi
My carbon footprint has been small for years. I even compete with my neighborhood for most energy-efficient (my company sends me comparative data every couple months - I'm always in the top 10%, and was #1 of the closest 100 once). Which is more a product of me being low maintenance than being a hippy, but hey, I'll take bonus points where I can get them.

It's the rest of you that need to shape up.

uhuh

inimalist
Well, sure, it is good if we all cut back and reduce our footprint, but the point of the video is a little more broad than that.

Even if we never produced another climate altering emission, within the next hundred years the emissions in the atmosphere today are going to push us over the brink that is being described as "unfit for global civilization". Individual cutbacks are sort of nice, but ultimately also sort of useless. We need an initiative akin to a global Manhattan Project to attempt to stabilize climate, or we die.

juggerman
we can kiss our a$$es goodbye

Shakyamunison
I have complete confidence that we humans are far too stupid to know what is really going on. Based on this thinking, I doubt we are on the brink of destruction. However, if we are, I think we are way past the point of no return.

inimalist
dawwwwww, you doubt it, but there is near unanimity among relevant scientists, who ever should we listen to? roll eyes (sarcastic)

"science is wrong, an if not, doesn't matter anyways"

at least you can take solace in knowing there probably won't be a human civilization around in a couple hundred years to laugh at that mindset.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
dawwwwww, you doubt it, but there is near unanimity among relevant scientists, who ever should we listen to? roll eyes (sarcastic)

"science is wrong, an if not, doesn't matter anyways"

at least you can take solace in knowing there probably won't be a human civilization around in a couple hundred years to laugh at that mindset.

In the 1970's all of the scientists were saying we were heading into an ice age.

Because I think we are only 10,000 years out of the caves does not mean that all science is wrong. Stop being an extremist.

If 100% of all scientists said the Earth was flat, would that make the Earth flat?

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the 1970's all of the scientists were saying we were heading into an ice age.

the press in the 1970s harped over an idea that never had a large amount of support in the scientific community, so your statement is plain wrong.

Further, this is like saying "geocentrism is wrong, therefore we can't know heliocentrism". The entire idea behind science is that ideas are replaced with better ones. That some people might have believed global cooling but now dont is, in fact, evidence for the current theories, as it shows they are built out of better understandings than we had 30 years ago.

Further still, we are incorrect about some things and the predictions of global warming have been wrong in some places. Generally, however, the problem is we assumed the environment was more resistant to our actions than it really is. So, when we are wrong in the modern context of climate change, it is that we didn't assume enough warming or we thought warming wouldn't be as bad as it was. Meaning, for as right as you are about our lack of understanding, it is causing us to be too conservative about warming, not that we are plain wrong about it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because I think we are only 10,000 years out of the caves does not mean that all science is wrong. Stop being an extremist.

no, but you show a severe lack of understanding of the process you are so quick to dismiss because we are only 10000 years out of caves.

I mean, how do you justify belief in humans exiting caves 10000 years ago yet not climate change? "I don't believe it so here is where science is limited"?

modern climate science is not more complex or controversial than paleo-anthropology ffs

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If 100% of all scientists said the Earth was flat, would that make the Earth flat?

it would certainly suggest it is the best hypothesis, given that is what the available data would be saying.

"we can't ever know anything as absolute, therefore we know nothing and should never do anything to avoid what is almost certainly catastrophe"

Shakyamunison

Digi
I don't deny climate change, nor the scale. My earlier response was somewhat sarcastic. I realize the scope, and just wanted to do some ironic finger-pointing. Basically, I'll vote for environmentally-minded politicians, promote it when I can, etc. But I'm not in a position to make a huge impact.

jalek moye
Originally posted by inimalist
Well, sure, it is good if we all cut back and reduce our footprint, but the point of the video is a little more broad than that.

Even if we never produced another climate altering emission, within the next hundred years the emissions in the atmosphere today are going to push us over the brink that is being described as "unfit for global civilization". Individual cutbacks are sort of nice, but ultimately also sort of useless. We need an initiative akin to a global Manhattan Project to attempt to stabilize climate, or we die.

Would be too much cooperation for something that everyone wants to pretend isn't happening.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Shakyamunison



The Earth being flat was the best hypothesis in its day.

Educated people have believed in a round Earth since Aristotle's time.

inimalist

RE: Blaxican
The funny thing here is that you are actually trying to make a logical appeal to Shakya.

Take a step back and think about who you're talking too. Then go have a beer.

Shakyamunison

inimalist
I like that your entire point can be debunked by this simple fact:

iirc 97% of all relevant scientists believe in anthrogenic climate change, and the number increases as you look at the more elite scientists in the field.

I don't know where you get any ideas of "pop culture" attempting to do science... especially given pop culture overwhelmingly is against global warming (to the point that the number of people who doubt it is steadily rising).

so, fail?

Omega Vision
Is English your first language, Shakya?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I like that your entire point can be debunked by this simple fact:

iirc 97% of all relevant scientists believe in anthrogenic climate change, and the number increases as you look at the more elite scientists in the field.

I don't know where you get any ideas of "pop culture" attempting to do science... especially given pop culture overwhelmingly is against global warming (to the point that the number of people who doubt it is steadily rising).

so, fail?

Thank you for illustrating my point. laughing 97% OMG it must be right. 97% of scientist all together will make it true - NOT.

Oh! and it is now "relevant scientists". rolling on floor laughing rolling on floor laughing rolling on floor laughing

All of the irrelevant scientists can go to hell. laughing out loud

This is nothing but a pop culture argument.

Shakyamunison
edit

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you for illustrating my point. laughing 97% OMG it must be right. 97% of scientist all together will make it true - NOT.

sure, except it does make it the best we have to go on

for ****s sake man, you could say this about anything. "We don't know electronics enough to make TVs, that theory of electron movement down a wire is only believed by some consensus, doesn't make it true".

like, this is mind numbing

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh! and it is now "relevant scientists". rolling on floor laughing rolling on floor laughing rolling on floor laughing

it has always been relevant scientists... I'm not overly concerned by entomologist think about the greenhouse effect.

this is how science works...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All of the irrelevant scientists can go to hell. laughing out loud

you could have just written "You have no good reason to listen to me"....

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is nothing but a pop culture argument.

except it doesn't appeal to pop culture and actually flies in the face of what is believed by a huge number of people in the popular culture?

EDIT:



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378010000300

Omega Vision
Shakya, can you calmly explain what your position is? And by calmly I also mean using fewer than 100 words.

inimalist
Originally posted by inimalist
you could have just written "You have no good reason to listen to me"....

ugh, I misread the part I responded to here, my bad, ignore this

dadudemon
Climate change canNOT be disputed.

Anthropogenic Climate Change can be disputed, depending on who is saying what about the human elements.

Even IF humans are later discovered to not be the cause of this recent climate change...if we do undergo a runaway greenhouse effect, we still have to fix the problem. So it is not as though the problem disappears if we can definitively prove that it was man-made.



Also, "climate" analysis and modeling is not the same thing as local weather forecasts.

Originally posted by inimalist
You know, like how I can talk authoritatively about the quark-gluon plasma because it was first isolated while I was alive. You know, because this makes sense and as a reasonable adult I shouldn't feel like an idiot to make an argument like this

OHHHH SNAP!

Like...daaaaaaamn.

Digi
Well, this actually raises something of a relevant point. For there to be action, I think there needs to be a critical point of public interest, and this conversation between shakya and inamilist is sort of a microcosm for much of the public discourse right now.

What, in your opinion(s), needs to happen for that critical mass to be reached? What isn't the scientific community doing now? Or is the fault elsewhere?

Because lots of us know about the problem in a vague way, but don't know the details of it. Like many, I sort of assumed the truth was somewhere between the two camps and their warnings/denials. I feel like I'm probably in the majority with that approach, because it's not something I can devote a ton of time and intellectual effort to.

....

And I thought shakya was a hippy...figured he'd be all over saving the planet.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Science is not determined by the number of believers.

You are correct. That is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum."


Even among credible studies, two different groups can get the exact opposite answer. That does not necessarily mean that both are wrong, both or right, or only one is wrong. That could simply mean that different methods and/or tools need to be used. I could use an analogy to show how two different studies can give differing results...but that is too much of a complicated of a task and I am too lazy. But, basically, one could use "spoons" and another could use "forks" and conclude that their own chosen utensil is the most scientifically sound for food consumption (bear with me, here). Neither of them could be at fault for their methods but both of them could need a better analysis OR more knowledge with which to study (it could be a psychological phenomena not yet known or understood and they only observe the results due to this lack of understanding).


That's a horrible example but it almost explains what I mean.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Even IF humans are later discovered to not be the cause of this recent climate change...if we do undergo a runaway greenhouse effect, we still have to fix the problem. So it is not as though the problem disappears if we can definitively prove that it was man-made.

thats actually one of the things I liked about the talk

regardless of what one thinks the cause is, so long as we accept that warming is occurring at the rate we measure it at, the danger still exists. The speaker doesn't really harp so much on carbon emissions or things like that, more just, "look, here is the problem"

I would say, the scientific consensus for anthrogenic warming is as I discussed earlier.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
...and the number increases as you look at the more elite scientists in the field...

I would like to see something on that because I have observed the opposite: the more specific the scientist is to climatology, the more polarized/heated the debate becomes (puns ****in' intended, lol!).

Originally posted by inimalist
...especially given pop culture overwhelmingly is against global warming

I have not observed this, good sir. I see the opposite. I observe this (this - pop culture is overwhelmingly in support of global warming) ONLY recently. Say...the last 10 years. I am not aware of how it was before that because I was more worried about girls and homework.


Yes, I did see the article you posted.


Originally posted by inimalist
thats actually one of the things I liked about the talk

regardless of what one thinks the cause is, so long as we accept that warming is occurring at the rate we measure it at, the danger still exists. The speaker doesn't really harp so much on carbon emissions or things like that, more just, "look, here is the problem"

I would say, the scientific consensus for anthrogenic warming is as I discussed earlier.

Unrelated: Is it anthrogenic? I always thought it was anthropogenic.


But, yes, the idea that anthropogenic global warming has to be proven is a red herring. It still does not make the problems go away: it just changes a few variables in the cause.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
What, in your opinion(s), needs to happen for that critical mass to be reached? What isn't the scientific community doing now? Or is the fault elsewhere?

I'll be the first to admit, I'm not overly well versed in the culture that surrounds climate science, but I get the impression from the talk that climate scientists probably aren't doing enough to prepare or theorize about what might be an alternative that doesn't require the sacrifices to economic things that people assume (rightly or wrongly) are associated with cutting CO2 and stuff like that.

Mainly, I think investment in things like carbon capture technology, solar reflection, etc, is going to be our best bet, but if co2 emissions continue to grow, we will be spending all our efforts simply cleaning the increases on a year to year basis, so major changes to energy infrastructure on a global level are probably necessary, though as mentioned earlier in the thread, this is highly unlikely given how few people even consider this a real issue.

I'm actually sort of stuck on this question myself. This video was actually the first time I had seen so succinctly put the damages to our society we could expect over such a small time-frame. It really spoke to me in a way that other climate stuff really hadn't. But like, I have no idea what to do now. The "girl-friend" suggested like letter writing or other such things, but I'm so cynical about their efficacy...

There are some people in her lab studying how to convince people that this is an issue, but I'm not even sure if widespread popular support would be enough. The financial interests that are served by the current CO2 regime are likely not too interested, and unless it is something people are going to revolt over , I can't see why the government would do anything but the bare minimum: Put up a couple windmills and brag about it until the next election cycle.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are correct. That is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum."


Even among credible studies, two different groups can get the exact opposite answer. That does not necessarily mean that both are wrong, both or right, or only one is wrong. That could simply mean that different methods and/or tools need to be used. I could use an analogy to show how two different studies can give differing results...but that is too much of a complicated of a task and I am too lazy. But, basically, one could use "spoons" and another could use "forks" and conclude that their own chosen utensil is the most scientifically sound for food consumption (bear with me, here). Neither of them could be at fault for their methods but both of them could need a better analysis OR more knowledge with which to study (it could be a psychological phenomena not yet known or understood and they only observe the results due to this lack of understanding).


That's a horrible example but it almost explains what I mean.

well, correct in a way, however, appealing to a scientific consensus is different than appealing to popularity.

I'd almost compare it to the way memory works. Memory is very much an "appeal to popularity", only instead of individuals, it is events. You know how a light switch works because of X number of events in the past that tell you how. It is not necessarily true, as maybe you are flicking a switch that operates a fireplace or something else, but it is a pretty decent heuristic that allows us to navigate in a generally consistent universe. I'd look at science closer to this, as a consensus is only formed by repeated and consistent results . A 97% consensus means that the data is probably entirely consistent with what the scientists are saying, meaning there are a large number of events that would, probabilisticly, suggest one thing is true over other things. It doesn't mean it absolutely, but by that type of post modern deconstruction, we can't say for sure that we know how the electronics we are communicating over work.

Regardless of if something produces an absolute truth, there are still things that are more or less likely than one another. Science has fairly definitively proven to be the best access to truth humans have, and this threat is of the magnitude "existential; end of global society", in this instance, there is a fairly strong argument for action, even if we can't know for sure, woooooooo.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I would like to see something on that because I have observed the opposite: the more specific the scientist is to climatology, the more polarized/heated the debate becomes (puns ****in' intended, lol!).

hmmm, I think I've posted you this paper before...

the Wiki on "surveys of scientists' views on climate change" is good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

I'm pretty sure the paper I'm talking about is Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not observed this, good sir. I see the opposite. I observe this (this - pop culture is overwhelmingly in support of global warming) ONLY recently. Say...the last 10 years. I am not aware of how it was before that because I was more worried about girls and homework.


Yes, I did see the article you posted.

Maybe that is worded a bit strongly. Climate change, or global warming, really can't be considered part of the popular culture, because close to 50% of Americans don't think it is real/an issue this point].

Not to just throw up the wiki again, but the "media coverage of climate change" is also good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_climate_change

basically, the media, in some desire to be "objective" , presents the very small amount of climate change skeptics as equal to the 97% consensus. For people who legitimately try to gain knowledge of issues for themselves, they are presented with a slanted message, often getting results from oil industry studies presented along side real science, as a "balanced" story.

My point was more about a scientific consensus, especially when it is contrary to the view of a large portion of the public, isn't really a "pop culture" argument

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unrelated: Is it anthrogenic? I always thought it was anthropogenic.

LOL, I was going to say "then shouldn't it be anthropomorphic?" and my spell check accepted it...

so ya, you are right... sad

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, yes, the idea that anthropogenic global warming has to be proven is a red herring. It still does not make the problems go away: it just changes a few variables in the cause.

well, depending on what you believe about the cause, the policy decisions about CO2 emissions change quite a bit

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
well, correct in a way, however, appealing to a scientific consensus is different than appealing to popularity.


Different in that a consensus among scientists (these days) is much much more credible than a consensus among the lay. Well, I should rephrase: a scientific consensus from among scientists within that related field is much much more credible than the consensus of the lay.


That still does not establish an absolute truth. It is still "argumentum ad populum" and a logical fallacy.


The real scientific work (if correct, of course) should stand independent of the scientists.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
hmmm, I think I've posted you this paper before...

the Wiki on "surveys of scientists' views on climate change" is good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

I'm pretty sure the paper I'm talking about is Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010.

You have not given me this information, before.

It is a fairly recent study, as well. And it says 97-98%, as well. And it was from actively publishing climate scientists (IIRC). However, it seems like a one-sided study. Doesn't it, to you?


The Bray and Von Storch, also a recent poll, does not paint such a strong picture:

http://ncse.com/files/pub/polls/2010-- Perspectives_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Clim
ate_Science_&_Climate_Change_.pdf

It was a poll conducted against an international pool of climate scientists.

I like this study, better, because it "scales" the question instead of only giving "yes" and "no" answers.

If I were to answer the poll on "is the climate change from the last 100 years in any way anthropogenic?"

I would say yes.


If someone were to ask this question: "Is the climate change from the last 100 years slightly attributable to human actions"? I would also say yes.

But answer on the first one would make me seem much more zealous than my answer to the second one.



This is a conversation you and I have had already.



I still find all of this avenue of argument to be distasteful. There are so many problems with these types of arguments. Such as "confirming your own opinion" and "it's popular to associate a study with climate change and much easier to get funding" which will skew how the science is actually conducted. Is it popular to doubt anthropogenic climate change? Hmmm...among the scientific community? Hell no.



Originally posted by inimalist
Maybe that is worded a bit strongly. Climate change, or global warming, really can't be considered part of the popular culture, because close to 50% of Americans don't think it is real/an issue this point].

Here is a very comprehensive listing of climate opinion among the people:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx




Originally posted by inimalist
Not to just throw up the wiki again, but the "media coverage of climate change" is also good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_climate_change

basically, the media, in some desire to be "objective" , presents the very small amount of climate change skeptics as equal to the 97% consensus. For people who legitimately try to gain knowledge of issues for themselves, they are presented with a slanted message, often getting results from oil industry studies presented along side real science, as a "balanced" story.

See, I was not aware of this. I probably don't pay attention long enough to a news stories to notice the "and here's Bob with a retort to this study on global warming".

But that would probably be more of a problem with how news has to be done rather than a bias. It seems the US media is overwhelmingly supportive of anthropogenic climate change. Maybe they studied Fox News in their study a bit too much? lol

Originally posted by inimalist
My point was more about a scientific consensus, especially when it is contrary to the view of a large portion of the public, isn't really a "pop culture" argument

Public opinion, in the US, has swayed up and down over the last 10 years, by significant margins. The people ebb and flow like the tide. I tend to care much more about what climatologists publish in peer reviewed journals than what a poll tells me.



Originally posted by inimalist
well, depending on what you believe about the cause, the policy decisions about CO2 emissions change quite a bit

If we find and fix the actual causes of climate change (if we separate out all of the causative elements, scale them in proper ratio, and appropriately mitigate those elements' effects...basically), and it just so happens that human activity is not relevant, then, yes, my point would be legit.


But then there's the argument that climate change is not necessarily bad, as a whole (as long as we do not experience a run-away effect).


But if man is largely responsible for this recent climate change (which I do not believe), then public policy needs to be implemented, now AND severely. This assumes, of course, that a run-away effect will occur.



Here's my opinion on that very topic:

Our public policies should be environmentally friendly. That's it! big grin



This topic has so many elements to it that I could literally talk about each one for a couple of hours. It is just too exhaustive to type about it.

Digi
I see you put the word "girlfriend" in quotations, inamilist. That cognitive dualism argument finally land you on the couch?

inimalist
na, we are just one of those hip modern couples that doesn't want to put labels on things.

/idk

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Digi
...And I thought shakya was a hippy...figured he'd be all over saving the planet.

If people discredit environmentalism by using bogus concepts like 97% of scientist say... then there will be no saving the planet.

How many scientists have to believe in the theory of Relativity before it is true? A: zero. Relativity was proved by direct observation of nature. In other words, no one has to believe in gravity for gravity to work. People who say things like "97% of scientist say" are presenting a pop culture argument, and not a scientific one.

inimalist
ok...

but you understand why 97% of scientists believe it, do you not?

Like, are you really under the impression that climate science, as a collection of theories and observations, is just plain wrong?

like, again, going back to something I asked you before, you believe in the greenhouse effect? that the composition of the atmosphere holds energy from the sun close to the surface of the earth, and that changing that composition may increase or decrease the ability of the atmosphere to do this?

EDIT:

sorry, let me parse it like this:

A) Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

B) Do you believe carbon is a chemical that increases the greenhouse effect?

C) If yes to A and B, given the rate at which humans are putting carbon into the atmosphere, how does it not produce warming?

really simple, 3 questions, massive piles of science behind them all. Go to it Shaky, show them climate scientists how pop-culture they are, with your super-science-know-how

Shakyamunison
A) Yes
B) Yes
C) No. There is more carbon pumped into the atmosphere in one volcanic eruption then what is being placed into the atmosphere by humans.

You really shouldn't listen to Al Gore, he is not a scientist.

Global warming is taking place. What about interglacial period that you do not understand?

Also, the number of scientists that believe or do not believe in something is irrelevant and not scientific, it is pop culture.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
C) No. There is more carbon pumped into the atmosphere in one volcanic eruption then what is being placed into the atmosphere by humans.



http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html

first google response for "human carbon emissions vs volcano"

you should fact check better

next?

Shakyamunison
I am debating the 97% crap only. If you have abandoned that approach, then I win. stick out tongue

inimalist
you win what? you said 97% was a pop culture argument, so lets talk science

if you are unwilling of debating against science, thats fine...

"I don't know the science, wont talk about the science, can't be bothered to look up the science, but I know we can't trust the science or the collective opinion of scientists. This is a totally logical position, I don't look foolish"

Shakyamunison
That study is based on dormant volcanic emissions world wide. I am talking about one Tora Bora like eruption.

You are only spewing propaganda.

I don't really want to talk to you, because you are rude and insulting all the time. Not for any other reason.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You really shouldn't listen to Al Gore, he is not a scientist.

Hey, look, straight up trolling.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That study is based on dormant volcanic emissions world wide.

they explicitly aren't actually:



so, where are you getting your info from.... ?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am talking about one Tora Bora like eruption.

Tora Bora in Afghanistan?

I assume you mean Bora Bora, cool, how much CO2 was put into the air in that eruption? You know, considering it erupted 4 million years ago, ffs, give me some decent numbers stick out tongue

Pinatubo, the second largest eruption in the 20th century, released only .05 tons of CO2. Maybe these other eruptions are larger, they certainly wouldn't account for one such eruption every 12.5 hours per year. Unless you want to actually provide some data

Shakyamunison
I meant Tambora, but Bora Bora would be fine.

We should move away from all volcanoes.

If supervolcanoes can spew out vast amounts of carbon, then why hasn't a runaway greenhouse effect happened in the past? Why it's Earth like Venus?

In 20 years there will be some other "the sky is falling" that some people will capitalize on, and make lots of money.

Fin

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I meant Tambora, but Bora Bora would be fine.

We should move away from all volcanoes.

If supervolcanoes can spew out vast amounts of carbon, then why hasn't a runaway greenhouse effect happened in the past? Why it's Earth like Venus?

In 20 years there will be some other "the sky is falling" that some people will capitalize on, and make lots of money.

Fin
Major eruptions actually cause global cooling effects by releasing sulfur-dioxide and sunlight-repelling ash particles into the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If supervolcanoes can spew out vast amounts of carbon, then why hasn't a runaway greenhouse effect happened in the past? Why it's Earth like Venus?

There have been massive climate shifts in the past. Lots of things die.

Supervolcanoes are also a one time input of CO2. Much like how being stuck with a needle is easily survivable but being stabbed thousands of times is considerably less so. We've also been destroying off many of the stabilizing factors that corrected for greenhouse gas increases in the past.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I meant Tambora, but Bora Bora would be fine.

ok, both of these eruptions occured before humans recorded such things, but we can sort of compare what was measured.

Tephra refers to the amount of volcanic rock that is erupted into the air when a volcano goes off. CO2 emissions from a volcano are dwarfed by this. For instance, in the Pinatubo eruption, 11 cubic km (km^3) of tephra was put into the air, along with .05 tons of CO2.

In Tambora, 150 km^3 was put in the air. Krakatoa only 20 km^3. Though it is only a rough sketch to assume a similar tephra/CO2 ratio, if we use Pinatubo as a starting off point, we could say Tambora produced 15x the CO2 Pinatubo did and Krakatoa only about 2x. Even at 15x (even at 100x for that matter), Tambora comes nowhere close to the CO2 emissions of humans.

Bora Bora was a series of volcanoes that went dead and were eventually worn away by rainfall, millions of years ago. There is no real evidence they had any exceptionally large eruptions.

Additionally, this is entirely a red herring. Even if we found a single volcano at some point in history that had a single eruption that produced as much CO2 as humans are now, that would be irrelevant. If Bora Bora had an eruption that produced 10000000000 tons of CO2 4 million years ago, that would not be a cause of modern climate change. We know what the largest eruptions in the past 100 years have been, and they are nothing compared to human industry in terms of putting CO2 in the atmosphere.

obviously these numbers are not entirely accurate, for instance, Wiki says Mt Saint Helen's produced just over 1/30th of the tephra of Pinatubo but 1/5 of the CO2, however given the fact that human industry produces 35 tons a year, this discrepancy is essentially moot. A volcano would need to produce several hundred times more CO2 than Pinatubo, and it doesn't really matter anyways, because those types of volcanoes are not currently erupting.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If supervolcanoes can spew out vast amounts of carbon, then why hasn't a runaway greenhouse effect happened in the past? Why it's Earth like Venus?

the vastly greater amount of tephra put in the air blocks sunlight from reaching the earth and prevents the greenhouse effect from occurring. If volcanoes produced more CO2 than tephra, you might see the opposite, but like OV said, massive volcanoes are associated with cooling, not warming.

Earth is not like Venus for a number of reasons... including the fact that they are completely different planets.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In 20 years there will be some other "the sky is falling" that some people will capitalize on, and make lots of money.

yes, you have definitely proven yourself knowledgeable enough to make such statements.

inimalist
wow, they could have been interviewing people from this thread:



http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/climate_skeptics_still_not_worried/

people like ddm and shaky fulfilling their own self fulfilling prophecies?

EDIT: sorry, that last part wasn't fair, technically ddm has just said global warming will be beneficial, not that there is nothing we can do about it. disregard his name s.v.p

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
wow, they could have been interviewing people from this thread:



http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/climate_skeptics_still_not_worried/

people like ddm and shaky fulfilling their own self fulfilling prophecies?

EDIT: sorry, that last part wasn't fair, technically ddm has just said global warming will be beneficial, not that there is nothing we can do about it. disregard his name s.v.p


You could try to troll less.

I never said that it would be perfectly beneficial with no harm. That would be stupid, now wouldn't it?

I have said that overall, it would be beneficial.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
You could try to troll less.

I never said that it would be perfectly beneficial with no harm. That would be stupid, now wouldn't it?

I have said that overall, it would be beneficial.

could you elaborate on how this is different from me saying you claimed it would be beneficial?

Yes, I could have merely removed your name from the statement at the end, but given how I largely disagree with the claim of benefit (unless, say, we think rearranging the deck chairs to a more aesthetically pleasing set-up on the Titanic is a benefit) I figured I'd just add the edit to clarify that I wasn't saying you were as crazy as Shaky. I may be trolling Shaky, I'm not sure, however, the article is funny in that the ex-oil executives seem to be making the, literal, exact same arguments he is. Is just plain mockery a form of trolling then?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
could you elaborate on how this is different from me saying you claimed it would be beneficial?

I already answered your question that you are posing, right here. I will not provide anymore. You can google search if you want more if it bothers you that much.

To be more direct, because Ushgarak has told me to be so: I do not wish to discuss that and I feel I have answered your question well-enough already. Use Google search.

Originally posted by inimalist
Is just plain mockery a form of trolling then?

Yes. That's "trolling 101".

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I already answered your question that you are posing, right here. I will not provide anymore. You can google search if you want more if it bothers you that much.

To be more direct, because Ushgarak has told me to be so: I do not wish to discuss that and I feel I have answered your question well-enough already. Use Google search.

so, just so I'm clear, you think there are benefits that, when weighed against things like "certain catastrophe that is not congruent with global civilization", are worth continuing climate change?

Like, for instance, I know Canada will have a longer period of crop growth if our temperature raised slightly. This, however, is offset by the drought conditions already hitting Africa, America, Asia, etc. Not only that, this benefit is based on temperature stabilizing at just a little hotter, and becomes non-beneficial as soon as it gets hotter than that. Basically, I've seen no benefits that aren't limited to a specific temporal window (that will almost certainly have expired within 100 years) and restricted to a local geographic area.

I haven't seen you answer this, but if your position is "look up my argument for me" I'll just leave it at that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. That's "trolling 101".

oh, fair enough, then I am happily trolling Shaky and anyone who makes such ludicrous arguments.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I haven't seen you answer this, but if your position is "look up my argument for me" I'll just leave it at that.

Actually, we discussed this very topic, in detail, a few years back. This is mostly why I do not wish to entertain it again.

Hmmm...

The conversations are just rehashes of past arguments and I find circular discussion a waste.

So, yes, if you really want to know the benefits of global warming, you can literally google search for it. There's no need for me to do so. You can wade through which ones you find credible and which ones you do not. That's much better than me half-assedly posting a shit link/study or two.



Originally posted by inimalist
oh, fair enough, then I am happily trolling Shaky and anyone who makes such ludicrous arguments.

I believe the keywords you used in your prior post were "mocking". Yes, mocking is trolling and it is one of the most basic kinds of trolling.

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, we discussed this very topic, in detail, a few years back. This is mostly why I do not wish to entertain it again.

Hmmm...

The conversations are just rehashes of past arguments and I find circular discussion a waste.

So, yes, if you really want to know the benefits of global warming, you can literally google search for it. There's no need for me to do so. You can wade through which ones you find credible and which ones you do not. That's much better than me half-assedly posting a shit link/study or two.

I'm actually not arguing that there aren't benefits, only that, when compared to the negatives, they are extremely limited in location and time. For instance, are you suggesting that there are benefits that will still be a net benefit in 100 years?

Oliver North
4rOi4usmINY

Ascendancy
I really can't understand why everyone acts like this only matters if global temperatures are affected. Whether that's the case or not we still have circulating gyres of waste in the oceans, we still have chemicals being dumped into waterways and habitats everyday, and we're still adding pollutants into the air that do nothing to improve our health and increase the occurrence of acid rain.

Yes, it's clear global temperatures are rising, but whether that is our fault or not it is clear that as a whole humanity has contributed a relentless flow of synthetic pollution to this planet and continues to do so. Global warming or the lack their of doesn't even matter, but hey, if it gets people talking that's great. Just glad to see that we're able to recycle two-thirds of all the trash in our house.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I really can't understand why everyone acts like this only matters if global temperatures are affected. Whether that's the case or not we still have circulating gyres of waste in the oceans, we still have chemicals being dumped into waterways and habitats everyday, and we're still adding pollutants into the air that do nothing to improve our health and increase the occurrence of acid rain.

Yes, it's clear global temperatures are rising, but whether that is our fault or not it is clear that as a whole humanity has contributed a relentless flow of synthetic pollution to this planet and continues to do so. Global warming or the lack their of doesn't even matter, but hey, if it gets people talking that's great. Just glad to see that we're able to recycle two-thirds of all the trash in our house.

air pollution and acid rain don't pose the existential threats to human existence that climate change does.

This issue is far more important than environmentalism, it is a threat to global security and the human race.

Ascendancy
Yeah, but what the hell does it matter if we survive only to be plagued by illness and pain all of our lives because of all the chemicals that we force into our own food chain and environment? There is no point in existence for existence's sake.

Oliver North
that seems like a fairly fatalistic way to look at things...

Tzeentch._
So, we're all going to die.

Assuming that that's inevitable, then why did I need to know this?

Ascendancy
Originally posted by Oliver North
that seems like a fairly fatalistic way to look at things...

Yes, that was the point. You're missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of arguments about what this does to climate in the long run it is destroying the planet; that much is clear. Why it took an argument over climate to get everyone paying attention I don't know.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Yes, that was the point. You're missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of arguments about what this does to climate in the long run it is destroying the planet; that much is clear.

if by "destroying the planet" you mean "having unpleasing local impacts that are generally only a catastrophe in impoverished nations that can't pay for the fallout", sure.

otherwise you are complaining about a sun burn while being boiled alive.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Why it took an argument over climate to get everyone paying attention I don't know.

Because the type of environmentalism you are talking about is a human aesthetic, whereas our impact on the climate could potentially end society.

As gross as smog is, it wont end our species. The garbage patch isn't an existential threat to humanity.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
So, we're all going to die.

Assuming that that's inevitable, then why did I need to know this?

The thing is I don't think it is inevitable, and knowing is at least a prerequisite to doing anything

Ascendancy
Originally posted by Oliver North
if by "destroying the planet" you mean "having unpleasing local impacts that are generally only a catastrophe in impoverished nations that can't pay for the fallout", sure.

otherwise you are complaining about a sun burn while being boiled alive.



Because the type of environmentalism you are talking about is a human aesthetic, whereas our impact on the climate could potentially end society.

As gross as smog is, it wont end our species. The garbage patch isn't an existential threat to humanity.

Again, what is the point of existing if it means living with maladies and malaise because of the poisons we pump into our own resources?

Most people don't even look at the current situation as ending our species, only as causing issues that would wipe out many forms of life, flood lowland areas and cities, and cause an increase in temperatures. I've seen no major sources proporting Day After Tomorrow scenarios resulting in the large-scale death or eventual extinction of the human race. That said, again it is still amazing that it took things getting to this point for everyone to make such a concerted effort; of course when many tried to get the message out about CFCs, dumping of chemical waste, etc back in the 80s and early 90s no one much listened to that. Maybe it's the fact that now there are a lot more major faces behind the push, not to mention all the social media putting it in everyone's faces. Whatever the case, as I said, glad something is happening.

Tzeentch._
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Again, what is the point of existing if it means living with maladies and malaise because of the poisons we pump into our own resources?
It is admittedly a little disconcerting that you don't make a distinction between "end of human existence on planet Earth forever"and "nuisance for human existence that can kill a lot of people".

Oliver North
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Most people don't even look at the current situation as ending our species, only as causing issues that would wipe out many forms of life, flood lowland areas and cities, and cause an increase in temperatures. I've seen no major sources proporting Day After Tomorrow scenarios resulting in the large-scale death or eventual extinction of the human race.

did you watch the video in the OP?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I really can't understand why everyone acts like this only matters if global temperatures are affected. Whether that's the case or not we still have circulating gyres of waste in the oceans, we still have chemicals being dumped into waterways and habitats everyday, and we're still adding pollutants into the air that do nothing to improve our health and increase the occurrence of acid rain.

A few years back when inimalist and I argued this topic for pages, that was the same argument I made to him about it, as well.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Yes, it's clear global temperatures are rising, but whether that is our fault or not it is clear that as a whole humanity has contributed a relentless flow of synthetic pollution to this planet and continues to do so. Global warming or the lack their of doesn't even matter, but hey, if it gets people talking that's great. Just glad to see that we're able to recycle two-thirds of all the trash in our house.

I think global-warming could still be important to talk about and mitigate...but possibly not. I still feel that there is a stupidly absurd bias in the scientific community to focus on the "negatives" of global warming instead of the positives. We are causing far more harm to humans and the environment with pollution, imo. Shit would get warmer, anyway.



The fear is a runaway effect. If that happens, yes, global warming will be shitstomping serious.

Ascendancy
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
It is admittedly a little disconcerting that you don't make a distinction between "end of human existence on planet Earth forever"and "nuisance for human existence that can kill a lot of people".
You missed the point of that statement entirely.

Omega Vision
I remember one news article quoting a scientist as saying--and this was during the height of the fears of bees dying out--that should the European honey bee die out, then it would be an unprecedented global ecological disaster, something that could only be mitigated by warmer temperatures allowing the African honey bee to supplant it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I remember one news article quoting a scientist as saying--and this was during the height of the fears of bees dying out--that should the European honey bee die out, then it would be an unprecedented global ecological disaster, something that could only be mitigated by warmer temperatures allowing the African honey bee to supplant it.

I think the scientist was putting too much importance on the honeybees' involvement in the sexual process of flowering plants on the European Continent.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I remember one news article quoting a scientist as saying--and this was during the height of the fears of bees dying out--that should the European honey bee die out, then it would be an unprecedented global ecological disaster, something that could only be mitigated by warmer temperatures allowing the African honey bee to supplant it.

for sure

The last I had heard, they really still didn't know the cause of the colony collapse either (I think they thought it was a parasite, after fears of it being like cell phone radiation or pesticides were ruled out).

and for sure, this is an advantage and a benefit that other bees or insects may pick up for the loss in crop pollination. However, for us to enjoy this benefit, we need to still be able to grow crops, whereas currently, over 50% of the United States is experiencing drought conditions.

So, lets imagine this benefit compensates for bee colony loss means that crops can now grow at the current rate on any suitable land, and further, that warming has moved this land further north. Sure, there would then be a benefit, and GMOs could probably stop there from being a massive food crisis, but the negative from this, such as most of America being ill suited for growing anything, water shortages, fires, etc, I can't really see the benefit of maintaining the status quo in that context. It seems much more like an adaptation to worsening conditions than a benefit for humans.

Additionally, this benefit will only last so long as the temperature stays exactly at what it was that balanced the bees with the crops. Any hotter, and the land required to grow food disappears even further.

Climate change is an issue where our immediate actions will play out over the course of hundreds of years. Any benefit that does not extend that far into the future is hard to call a benefit. TBH, we would need to see something that, as a constant, increased its benefit to humanity as temperature increased, even into the range where the temperature would be fatal to humans.

And to clarify, this is dealing with Canada and America, two of the richest nations on the planet. How is Africa going to deal with increasing food shortage and drought? Does the scenario described above still count as a benefit if a large portion of the world is facing epidemic starvation?

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the scientist was putting too much importance on the honeybees' involvement in the sexual process of flowering plants on the European Continent.

the European honeybee is also the one that pollinates American crops

Originally posted by dadudemon
We are causing far more harm to humans and the environment with pollution, imo. Shit would get warmer, anyway.

harm is an ill defined concept, but I can't think of a single example that supports this claim.

Like, ok, air pollution causes cancer. Climate change has the potential to cause society to collapse.

Ascendancy
Well, as a whole we've show we don't care too much for this planet anyway. If we destroy ourselves there's nothing really to feel sorry about is there? Maybe those who survive will do this differently. I have the feeling that many people who are considered "primitive" would survive this and in terms of the big picture wouldn't even really see a difference.

Oliver North
most people considered "primitive" are in geographic regions that are most at risk due to climate change.

also, we get it, you don't like humans. obvious suicide reference is obvious.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I have the feeling that many people who are considered "primitive" would survive this and in terms of the big picture wouldn't even really see a difference.

Generally "primitive" societies are quite dependent on their environment not collapsing.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
the European honeybee is also the one that pollinates American crops

There are several species of "European honeybees". There isn't just one.

However, I didn't think it affected the North American colonies, in the context of that scientist's comment. I believe it was in reference to the production in Europe, not America.

http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/European-honey-bee-declines


But I checked and I may be out of date. It appears to be affecting America since 2004:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport2011.pdf


sad

Originally posted by Oliver North
harm is an ill defined concept, but I can't think of a single example that supports this claim.

Under pollution is included things like CO2 emissions. The "harm" caused by various types of pollution is hardly undefined.

But, if you don't think pollution harms humans (and many other species), I am open to some science.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Like, ok, air pollution causes cancer. Climate change has the potential to cause society to collapse.

First, I want to address your use of "climate change". That's not what you mean, imo. You mean global warming. "Climate change" is something being used because of the variability in climate that arises (more extremes). When you get down to the nitty gritty, you don't talk about "global climate change temperature", you refer to it as "global mean temperature". The warmer, the more indicative of global warming. That warming ties into climate change. That climate change does contribute to the various changes seen around the world (some bad, some good).

We can claim many things have the potential to cause societies to collapse. But I think saying things like "global warming" has the potential to cause societal collapse is similar to (but not as severe as) tinfoil hat talk.

This current period (Holocene) largely disagrees with the notion that climate change causes societal collapse.

http://thegwpf.org/science-news/2225-benny-peiser-climate-change-a-civilisation-collapse.html

We also live in a different time-period so it could be even better (or it could be worse) as we experience climate change.


Significant climate change will happen. This is pretty much inevitable. Societies are more likely to collapse for political reasons than climate change.

I think we'll see more problems with energy than we will with climate change.


Originally posted by Oliver North
most people considered "primitive" are in geographic regions that are most at risk due to climate change.

I don't think this is true. It is true for some, obviously, but the way you word this makes it seem like those geographic regions at highest risk to climate change are occupied mostly by "primitive" people.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Generally "primitive" societies are quite dependent on their environment not collapsing.

I believe history shows migration is their solution.

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
Under pollution is included things like CO2 emissions. The "harm" caused by various types of pollution is hardly undefined.

yes, however, I wouldn't call climate change a "pollution" issue. reducing "pollution" will do very little, given the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by dadudemon
First, I want to address your use of "climate change".

I use the terms interchangeably, I wouldn't read much into it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I think saying things like "global warming" has the potential to cause societal collapse is similar to (but not as severe as) tinfoil hat talk.

so, is it that you don't think the temperature is going to rise as much as the scientists think, or that the rise isn't going to be as bad as they thought?



Originally posted by dadudemon
This current period (Holocene) largely disagrees with the notion that climate change causes societal collapse.

http://thegwpf.org/science-news/2225-benny-peiser-climate-change-a-civilisation-collapse.html

I would be inclined to disregard anything from the GWPF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Originally posted by dadudemon
Significant climate change will happen. This is pretty much inevitable. Societies are more likely to collapse for political reasons than climate change.

Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse, which looks at the collapse of many civilizations through history, would disagree.

Jared Diamond does not belong to a think tank whose stated goal is to promote climate "skepticism"

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we'll see more problems with energy than we will with climate change.

because the two aren't related?

Ascendancy
Originally posted by Oliver North
most people considered "primitive" are in geographic regions that are most at risk due to climate change.

also, we get it, you don't like humans. obvious suicide reference is obvious.
Nope. I enjoy being alive and I am not a misanthrope, I just don't miss the big picture while trumpteting the new environmentalism. I'm not a fatalist either, just a realist. Think of me as the Mono tottering towards the closing pyramid wall in The Fifth Element ; if I or those who follow me die as a result of the foolish decisions of others then death will simply be the outcome, with the hope that those who follow will do better. We're here discussing inanities on a forum; what will your one-sided banter do to save the world? Besides being clearly closed-minded you proffer no solutions and present your views in ways that make others loathe to hear your hardline points.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Nope. I enjoy being alive and I am not a misanthrope, I just don't miss the big picture while trumpteting the new environmentalism.I'm not a fatalist either, just a realist. Think of me as the Mono tottering towards the closing pyramid wall in The Fifth Element ; if I or those who follow me die as a result of the foolish decisions of others then death will simply be the outcome, with the hope that those who follow will do better. We're here discussing inanities on a forum; what will your one-sided banter do to save the world? Besides being clearly closed-minded you proffer no solutions and present your views in ways that make others loathe to hear your hardline points.

dawwwwww, puddin'

hughughughughughughug

let's never fight again lovelove

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, however, I wouldn't call climate change a "pollution" issue. reducing "pollution" will do very little, given the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere.

I don't either (meaning, I don't think that reducing our GHG problem to just pollution is the best approach or even intellectually honest). But I think it's absurd to conclude that reducing our "pollution" will do very little. There are more kinds of pollution than just CO2. Some kinds are much more directly related and measurable to human and environmental destruction.

Also, at what point do we say humans no longer have a stake in this world? I know that sounds stupid considering our proliferation, but we do have to consider the consequences of catastrophic change to our actions. "But, Jim! What of the catastrophic consequences if we DON'T change!" Yeah...you already know my position on that: it's not as bad as some people think it will be.


Originally posted by Oliver North
I use the terms interchangeably, I wouldn't read much into it.

My bad and apologies. In the past and with other people, I have seen that used as a way to hide and avoid the "warming" portion of the argument.



Originally posted by Oliver North
so, is it that you don't think the temperature is going to rise as much as the scientists think, or that the rise isn't going to be as bad as they thought?

I don't know where my option is in there but I think the consequences are not going to be as bad as being purported.

Originally posted by Oliver North


I would take the position that: "It was not nearly as bad in some areas as predicted but it was worse in some areas."



Originally posted by Oliver North
I would be inclined to disregard anything from the GWPF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Why? It makes a case, several times, about how society would be affected and cites its sources. Based on the writing, it looks like the overall conclusions is "it's not as bad as some people say".

Based on my own research (NOT scientific...just reading and searching on my own), I get the vibe that there is some areas of concern. I cannot and will not sweepingly decide that no one will be hurt, affected, or detrimented due to climate change.

It is just that, I find myself having to take constant skeptic positions with you because you're so extremely polar on this topic. Any other place or discussion, I usually have to take the side of, "no, read this shit...CG/GW are serious business".


Originally posted by Oliver North
Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse, which looks at the collapse of many civilizations through history, would disagree.


Do you have any other sources besides Jared Diamond's book? Don't get me wrong, I find Jared Diamond's works awesome but I read that his book "Collapse" had tons of factual errors and misrepresentations so I shied away from it.



Originally posted by Oliver North
because the two aren't related?

Because the two are intimately related?



Originally posted by Ascendancy
Besides being clearly closed-minded you proffer no solutions and present your views in ways that make others loathe to hear your hardline points.

This is how I view his approach to this topic, as well. HOWEVER, I still love him. love

Ascendancy
Originally posted by Oliver North
dawwwwww, puddin'

hughughughughughughug

let's never fight again lovelove
Hey, it's clear that you're a very intelligent guy and I have no problem in giving you credit when you're right about something, but you tend to go "my way or the highway" in a lot of threads instead of presenting your info and letting everyone else make up his or her own mind. Chillax.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I or those who follow me die as a result of the foolish decisions of others then death will simply be the outcome

Yes, dieing often results in death.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.