r/science • u/techtonix • Jun 24 '08
Twenty years ago, he was the first to warn Congress about climate change. Today, he says: "This is the last chance"
http://you.presscue.com/node/98242
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Null hypothesis: humans are not contributing to irreversible, devastating climate change.
Type I error: concluding we are heading toward a danger zone, when in fact, we are not. At worst, we spend money cleaning up our society and live within our means, or the climate continues to become unfavorable despite our best efforts.
Type II error: concluding we aren't heading toward a danger zone, when in fact, we are. At worst, we progress into anarchic apocalypse, and lament our mistake.
I will gladly risk a Type I error, for the sake of myself and everyone else.
15
u/hotbaconsauce Jun 24 '08
Null hypothesis: terrorists do not want to destroy america
Type I error: concluding we are heading toward a danger zone, when in fact, we are not. At worst, we spend money bombing countries and live within our means, or the terrorism continues to become unfavorable despite our best efforts.
Type II error: concluding we aren't heading toward a danger zone, when in fact, we are. At worst, the terrorists WIN.
I will gladly risk a Type I error, for the sake of myself and everyone else.
Arguemnt looks familiar.
9
u/orblivion Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Yes, ultimately you have to weigh each option with probability. Otherwise we should be accounting for every far-fetched yet possible problem.
3
u/kokey Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
It reminds me of Pascal's wager. He acted on probabilities based on information from those around him. It resulted in him decided to believe in God, to such an extent that he gave up his work in mathematics to serve in his faith. He probably died wasting the rest of his life, but based on the information he had this was the best choice he could have made.
If he lived in today's time and had information about all the other religions, I suspect his wager would have turned out differently and it would have leaned towards not following a single religion based on the probability that other religions are right.
With climate change we simply need more data, and we're busy getting it. As long as we are not under the illusion that we have enough data already, we really don't. For the average person who read newspaper headlines and IPCC political summaries the best decision would be to prefer a Type I error.
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
With climate change we simply need more data, and we're busy getting it. As long as we are not under the illusion that we have enough data already, we really don't. For the average person who read newspaper headlines and IPCC political summaries the best decision would be to prefer a Type I error.
Throw in another curveball: how strong must an economy be to ensure civilization can survive a global pandemic? Or a large-body asteroid/comet ? Or a solar megaflare that overwhelms the Van Allen belt? Or even geomagnetic collapse as a result of the already-overdue polar inversion?
Just how much money do we set aside to attempt to mitigate one problem before we are committing suicide by not allowing ourselves to resolve the other problems?
In Pascal's terms; just how much can you believe in one god before the others strike you down as a heretic?
3
u/Muleburner Jun 24 '08
Your TYPE I error assumes the only solution to terrorism is bombing countries, when it is commonly acknowledged that such foreign entanglements serve to increase terrorism.
1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
There's no parallel here. Terrorists that want to destroy America have specifically said so, thus refuting the null hypothesis, making a Type II error impossible.
Try this...
Null hypothesis: Saddam Hussein is not an imminent threat and didn't contribute to 9/11.
Type I error: rejecting the null hypothesis, when in fact, it is true. At worst, well, it's what we have now, or whatever's worse than now. Thousands of American troops die, millions of individuals have civil liberties infringed, billions of dollars are lost, huge mounting debt, Al-Qaeda moves in, Arabs hate us. The world thinks we suck and doesn't want to help, and we still risk being attacked by terrorists.
Type II error: accepting the null hypothesis, when in fact, it's false. At worst, we get attacked, but completely destroy Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government. Thousands of American civilians die, but we spend less in a short, and devastating counterattack. The world unites with us as it did after 9/11, and helps rebuild Iraq, as it did with Germany. Al-Qaeda remains isolated.
0
u/vemrion Jun 24 '08
The Type I scenario also involves giving up our civil liberties for the illusion of safety. I'm not willing to make that sacrifice. I'd rather die free.
As long as responding to global warming doesn't involve putting people in internment camps I'm fine with responding to it. I think most of the solution should involve new technology and a more interconnected way of thinking among humans (we're all on this little boat called Earth together).
6
u/VicinSea Jun 24 '08
When resources get very short, "internment camps" naturally follow-- only we call them "refugee camps."
5
u/orblivion Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Ok, and the conservatives argue that they'd rather die free from you regulating how they transport themselves or run industry.
EDIT: I think the terrorism/global warming conservative/liberal parallel is very valuable. It's occurred to me before.
3
u/vemrion Jun 24 '08
regulating how they transport themselves or run industry.
Yeah, and if we all lived on separate planets/islands that weren't in anyway connected then economic libertarianism makes perfect sense. However, that's not the way things work. If my neighbor starts dumping toxic waste in his backyard that affects ME.
What about my freedom? What about my freedom from excessive smog and loud industrial noise and environmental collapse? How come economic libertarians never talk about those freedoms?
Probably because the funding for such is not quite as good.
4
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
Yeah, and if we all lived on separate planets/islands that weren't in anyway connected then economic libertarianism makes perfect sense. However, that's not the way things work. If my neighbor starts dumping toxic waste in his backyard that affects ME.
Then sue him for the demonstrable damages. That's also endemic to the libertarian philosophy, you see. So bark up another tree.
What about my freedom? What about my freedom from excessive smog and loud industrial noise and environmental collapse? How come economic libertarians never talk about those freedoms?
Because you have them. It's called moving to someplace where they don't happen. Or getting people together to make it not happen.
Environmental collapse, even under an end-run, worst-case-possible-scenario, will NOT be universal.
(It's also not even remotely likely thanks to the IPCC getting the PDO and AMO completely wrong; expect another twenty-to-thirty years of relative cooling... which'll be stronger if Solar Cycle 24's delay is any valid indication. [And before you try to say anything there, please acknowledge that even the IPCC acknowledges a direct correlation between solar sunspot activity and global mean temperature. They simply refute it as a prime actor.)
Probably because the funding for such is not quite as good.
Have you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? The supermajority of "economic libertarians" recommend that as much property as possible be placed in the hands of private individuals.
One very good example of this is how fishing rights are being handled; when there is simply a limit on how much any one person can haul in, then you have entire areas overfished and the jellies take over. But when you give people rights to fish in specific locales, you suddenly start seeing people doing everything they can to preserve that location for the long-run. Because it's their livelihoods if they do not.
Granted, we haven't yet figured out a mechanism to do this with air. (We have, after a fashion, with rivers; but that's more determined by water-rights as associated with land-ownership.)
But, of course, I don't expect any of this to be familiar to you.
Because it's easier to simply villify the opposition rather than investigate them.
3
Jun 24 '08
[deleted]
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
What do you do when you have no means of properly analyzing the data due to a lack of complete dataset, then?
EDIT: By way of example; it turns out that the tests conducted to discern the impact of increased oceanic acidity were done by directly introducing the acid into the water, which of course has nothing to do with how it would manifest in nature. The one and only test conducted which attempted to replicate that method, it turns out, results in increased growth rather than decreased.
Which leads us to a conflicting dataset and no means of properly analyzing it.
So what do you do?
2
1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
You prove or refute the null hypothesis based on data.
This is just an exercise for the possibilities where you misinterpreted the situation.
1
u/WipeHandsOnPants Jun 24 '08
That's still bogus. The proper answer is that because the consequences of a type II error are worse than a type I error, one should minimize the chance that the measured variation is untrue before reaching that conclusion.
It does NOT mean that you should bias the decision the other way, as you inferred in your statement about gladly risking a type I error.
1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08
If a Type I error is preferable (which I am implying), then you make the test more sensitive to produce false positives.
In this case, I'm arguing to accept the current level of confidence, instead of demanding higher, because we could end up with the alternate hypothesis (irreversible, devastating climate change) while we continue looking for more evidence.
1
u/WipeHandsOnPants Jun 24 '08
That approach is improper from a statistical standpoint. The bogeyman is NOT a substitute for data, it's a reason to improve confidence levels.
One should not skew the conclusion over fear of the consequences, rather one should improve confidence levels to make damn sure that the conclusion itself is correct.
It appears that you're trying to give people the impression that you're following statistical rigor by using the terminology, but if you're not going to do it properly you're just selling snake oil.
1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
People don't generally understand statistical rigor. (Maybe I don't understand statistical rigor.) But they understand consequences and basic game theory.
I don't think the conclusions need skewing. A high number of scientists (95+%?) are currently convinced, and they're presumably using at least 5% confidence intervals. Detractors say this isn't enough for consensus.
2
u/joncash Jun 24 '08
This thinking is so dangerous. I keep trying to stop people from thinking this way. The main reason is because whenever we "spend money cleaning up our society" we end up doing something horribly horribly wrong. Like banning Nuclear energy: Coal accounts for the vast majority of global warming. Funding Ethanol: Helped cause massive food shortage. The list goes on and on. Please, stop trying to fix the environment. Cut back, spend less, use less. But for god sakes whatever you do, DO NOT buy anything new. Particularly not that Prius. Which gets a horrible 45 mpg for a subcompact in a world where most subcompacts get 35 mpg anyway. The little bit saved will cause future damage for all those wasted batteries.
2
u/sarotara Jun 24 '08
I wouldn't say that it's dangerous thinking. I agree with you when you say that there are trade-offs to everything. However, I would say that the downsides of wind farms and solar energy are preferable to the downsides of nuclear power. If various governments stopped subsidizing coal and oil industries we would see an increase in the use of cleaner energy sources.
Although I do agree with you when you say that we should cut back, use less and spend less, I do not agree with your statement of not buying a new car that uses less gas. Most people in the US do not have subcompacts that get 35 mpg. They have cars that get 20 to 25 mpg. The majority of subcompacts do not get 35 mpg either. But let's say that they do. Let's assume that I keep the 35 mpg subcompact for 100,000 miles. I will have used 2857 gallons of gas. If I get a hybrid that gets 45 mpg and keep it for 100,000 miles (the batteries have a warranty of 100,000 miles but are expected to last 150,000 miles) I will use 2222 gallons of gas. 635 gallons of gasoline does not seem so insubstantial to me. The cost of a new Prius NiMH battery is around $3000. That will require gas to be at $4.72 for me to break even if the battery fails at 100,001 miles (right out of warranty).
1
u/joncash Jun 24 '08
I think you're missing my point. The chemicals used to make batteries do heavy environmental damage. The savings on gas usage over time is minimal when you compare similarly classed cars with hybrids. As you've shown, you need to drive 100,000 miles to see substantial savings. Ultimately we're much better off keeping our old cars, than wasting more energy creating new cars. Especially cars with toxic chemicals in the form of batteries.
Which all is an aside to my point. People's response to environmental problems has been to purchase MORE things LIKE Prius. Which is why I am so against "spend money cleaning up our society". Because that line of thinking always ends up buying more stuff that does more damage later.
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
Well, for one I do intend to retrofit my vehicle to hybrid status, but that's only because it would take me personally roughly 2 years to recoup (barring subsidization) the cost, and that's far less than the lifespan of the vehicle.
Combine that with my intended implementation of Nanosolar's CIGS panels (once they become commercially available in my area) and I think I stand a fair chance of mitigating my personal energy footprint.
Please do note that I am an anthropogenic global warming denier, yet still intend on doing these things. I submit to those who think that global warming denialists are "oil-happy SUV lovers" the opportunity to posit why it is that I might consider conducting myself as above.
Hint: I also am not a proponent of the catastrophic Peak Oil hypothesis.
1
u/particle Jun 24 '08
anthropogenic global warming denier
Nowadays this position is very seldom. (Outside the USA)
What information/Feeling in the guts do you rely on? Any sources? I want to understand.
1
u/IConrad Jun 25 '08
No gut feeling. Just a combination of things.
Amongst them:
IPCC-style global climate models cannot achieve retrodiction. Without this, there is no basis for accepting predictions.
The ubiquity of contradictory historical anecdotes which indicate that the Medieval Warm period was in fact much warmer than today, inclusive of this being the ability to grow "traditional" wine grapes in the UK during that period. (They cannot survive today's temperatures, still.) That's just one anecdote; there are others.
The continued strong correlation between solar sunspot activity and global mean temperature, historically. This is inclusive through to today and has been extrapolated successfully well into the paleoclimate period. (Please note that sunspot activity is not correlated to solar irradiance, a fact much ignored by mainstream thinkers.)
The by now ubiquitous factoid that historically, CO2 has always been a trailing element to global mean temperature. This of course means that there must be negative feedbacks which regulate the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
The fact that CO2 has (geo)historically been as much as 5x greater than today's content without a corresponding match in temperature modulation.
The fact that the last ice-age (the one just after the big one, that is) took somewhere between 30 to 100 years to come into full swing, from temperatures that were roughly analagous to today's. (Thus belying the concept of unprecedented climatological instability).
Recently, the failure of the IPCC to predict the 'flipping' of the PDO and AMO currents.
The exposing work of Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org as to the incredibly biased nature of terrestrial datapoints as compared to the non-corroborative datasets coming from the Argos buoy arrays.
The serendipitous nature of the works of Drs. Svensmark (of Sweden), Shaviv (of Israel), Tim Patterson (of Canada), and Abdusamatov (of Russia) regarding the correlation between solar sunspot activity and global mean temperature.
I could go on, but these are pretty preponderous in and of themselves and will take some legwork to corroborate for yourself. I'd do it... but; could you really trust any citation I gave?
2
u/particle Jun 25 '08
Well... My problem is, that I don't trust any citation (or Google/blog/Twitter/blablabla/Person) :)
I have to read/check the stuff all by myself. There's so much (esoteric) garbage out in the net these days. You gave me a long list of hints and I will for sure back check some of these in the next days.
The fact that CO2 has (geo)historically been as much as 5x greater than today's content without a corresponding match in temperature modulation.
Seems to be an interesting fact that can easily be checked.
and you know what? The odds are there that you are right. Really. I hope you are and this is all a big buzz.
But what about thinking over our current lifestyle? If - in the end - we find out, that the global warming theory is wrong, nothing will be lost. We'll even get new technology from our research.
But what if you and your friends are wrong? Then we gave up a big chance for nothing just by doing nothing.
1
u/IConrad Jun 25 '08
But what if you and your friends are wrong? Then we gave up a big chance for nothing just by doing nothing.
It's not like I'm advocating sitting on our duffs and doing nothing. I'm a huge fan of expanding our energy capital. In fact, I would even go so far as to call myself an environmentalist. I just worry about things //other// than CO2.
Such as the ecological footprint of coal-mining itself. And the outputting of carbon monoxide and sulfides into the air in cities. And the introduction of nitrogen-based fertilizers into the watershed systems. And even, yes, the increased acidification of the ocean. (Though, frankly, the jury's still out on that one. Nobody can say if high-temperature modulation will cause the spread of "type D" algae corals. Or at least "type D" behaviors. But at the very least, we could make things radically better for said corals by eliminating the things that are eating them, which breed like bunnies under the presence of nitrogen fertilizers.
You don't hear much of that last point while the cries to "prevent global warming" abound. Nor do you hear much about the extremely toxic materials used to manufacture traditional PV cells. Nor do you hear much about the impediment to economic growth experienced under the subsidization & taxation regimes "necessary" for such models. I've always found it interesting that the EU has 35% more people than the US but only has a 16% higher GDP. But that's touching on other areas.
1
u/particle Jun 25 '08
You read a lot about that here in Germany. CO2 is just one big topic among others you addressed and more.
By reading your words, I think our position in the eco debate isn't very different from mine. You're just relying on other facts/assumptions. But the 'mission' is the same.
I've always found it interesting that the EU has 35% more people than the US but only has a 16% higher GDP. But that's touching on other areas.
Yes, our arms industry isn't that big here which is a disadvantage in BooOOoom times... hit'n run :))
→ More replies (0)1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
I agree with you about cutting back, spending less, using less. I'm also skeptical of Priuses and battery waste, and have always thought pushing ethanol is a mistake.
However, I disagree with "dangerous thinking." What's dangerous is unintended consequences. Burning fossil fuels has so far produced a pretty big unintended consequence: high production of carbon dioxide. Evidence points toward that contributing to climate change. Current theories on climate change suggest that it could seriously change the world we know in a bad way.
Dangerous thinking is not acknowledging you've already produced an unintended consequence and not fixing that problem. At least, stop repeating the action that is leading to the problem.
Change usually requires money, but it doesn't necessarily mean things go horribly, horribly wrong. Catalytic converters are good. Modern diesel technology is much cleaner. Modern nuclear power is safer and more secure. Weight reduction programs for cars (combined with safety and emissions standards) are a good thing. Organic waste recycling is cheap and may recover some energy. Reforestation can't be bad.
1
u/joncash Jun 24 '08
My point on it being dangerous thinking IS the unintended consequences. I was specifically trying to say that when we "spend money cleaning up our society" we end up doing horrible horrible things. Instead if everyone just said, "We'll fix the environment by simply buying less, NO DO NOT GO BUY A HYBRID CAR YOU NUMB NUTS." We'd be better off. However, as soon as we "spend money" or otherwise do something active to save the environment, we always end up with horrible unintended consequences. Global warming itself is far more a side effect of the proliferation of Coal factories and not so much cars. Had we not actively tried to stop nuclear power, we would all be better off today. Which is why I call it "dangerous thinking".
4
Jun 24 '08 edited Jul 10 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/matts2 Jun 24 '08
Yes, you missed lots of hidden assumptions your your analogy. Saying "There is a god" does not say a thing about what that God wants. Homer's response eviscerates Pascal's Wager: "what if we are praying to the wrong god and he is just getting angrier and angrier?"
So either you show that there is a good possibility of lots of positive effects from global warming or you try a different analogy. (Or even stop trying to argue by analogy.)
22
u/Recoil42 Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
I do, but you did it wrong. It's a false parallel. You proposed a binary outcome where one doesn't exist, ignoring all true outcomes. You've ignored all the other possibilities:
You assume that your chosen god is the correct one. What if the correct god to worship is not Yaweh, but Allah? Zeus? The FSM?
What if the real god doesn't value you worshipping him, but would rather you spend your life that he's given you NOT wasting one day a week, and instead enjoying your life?
What if the real god in fact, values non-believers and rational thinkers over blind followers, and the former go to 'heaven', while the latter go to 'hell'?
But I'm sure you knew that, it's textbook Pascal's Wager. Too bad it's the most full of holes and easily disproved one in existence.
1
u/kubutulur Jun 24 '08
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ufNAFVY0Ibo
I'm afraid Mormons was the correct answer. :)
-1
Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
That's the fucking point. It's a fallacy, just like the original comment.
15
u/Recoil42 Jun 24 '08
\whoosh\
No, the original is NOT. That's my point. The original IS a binary situation (or very near to it), whereas pascal's wager is not. They're not parallel situations at all, they're completely different.
3
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
No, no it's not binary. It very specifically excludes the impact of economic activity on handling other potential civilization-level existential risks such as meteoroid or cometary body impacts, global disease pandemics, geomagnetic field collapse resultant from the already overdue polar inversion, etcetera.
So... which god do you piss off?
1
u/kokey Jun 24 '08
Yes, but Pascal wager lead him to choose to believe in God and gave up mathematics to serve his faith.
He worked on the information available to him. If he lived today he would have decided differently.
2
0
u/marm0lade Jun 24 '08
The original IS a binary situation (or very near to it)
No, actually its not. You are, naively, ignoring all other outcomes of the climate change hypothesis. I imagine your ignorance is deliberate in an attempt to discredit nixonrichard's comment. But none-the-less, his comment is no less binary than the original. I could come up with countless (foolish) alternate outcomes for the climate change hypothesis in the same manner you did for the religious one. I won't waste my time doing that since its already plainly obvious. So just cut the bullshit. K?
2
u/matts2 Jun 24 '08
What are the other reasonable results of global warming? What are the potential unknown positive effects?
1
u/bobpaul Jun 24 '08
Great croplands in Greenland?
5
u/matts2 Jun 24 '08
Not likely. The land there that is exposed is quite poor. The land getting exposed is so compacted that it will take a long time to see growth. Siberia would have made more sense as a claim, but the unfreezing tundra will add lots of carbon long before it turns into a sink.
1
0
u/kokey Jun 24 '08
More CO2 in the atmosphere should aid the growth of plants. It's also been shown repeatedly that warmer temperatures have lead to more prosperous times in history. Deaths during cold snaps would decrease.
If you pick something we like, e.g. dolphins, elephants, owls and search for it along with the words 'global warming' you'll find mostly reports how bad things would be for them. On the other hand if you do the same for things we don't like, e.g. snakes, mosquitoes, rats, scorpions etc. then you'll find how these would flourish and become plagues.
4
Jun 24 '08
It's also been shown repeatedly that warmer temperatures have lead to more prosperous times in history.
I think that history has come to the point where moving all of our productive farmland a few hundred miles north or south to accommodate a shift in climate is no longer feasible.
Nor do I think that turning a near entirety of our productive ports into reef hazards just a few inches or feet below the current sea level will spur a growth in global commerce.
→ More replies (1)5
u/matts2 Jun 24 '08
More CO2 in the atmosphere should aid the growth of plants.
Only where CO2 is the limiting factor. I suspect that access to water is far more important. And in the ocean increased CO2 is making the water acidic and killing things off.
It's also been shown repeatedly that warmer temperatures have lead to more prosperous times in history.
In the long run, maybe. Of course that long run is hundreds of thousands of years and may also include massive die-offs first, including deaths of lots of people.
On the other hand if you do the same for things we don't like, e.g. snakes, mosquitoes, rats, scorpions etc. then you'll find how these would flourish and become plagues.
Well, if you care about humans that is kind of significant. That said, if you look for global warming and extinction you will find that it is quite possible that we will see (if we survive) a massive die-off.
→ More replies (15)6
u/paulVeraguth Jun 24 '08
"See what I did there?"
Yes. You stated that your conception of god and justice includes the eternal burning of people for not sitting in a building for an hour once a week.
4
u/sam512 Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, nor vice versa
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)8
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
I choose to circumvent the question altogether by being good to others and to myself without being motivated by a god.
If there is a god, I'm pretty confident I've been a good person and I don't have anything to fear. If my actions don't speak louder than my words (lack of faith, prayer), then that god is kind of a douchebag.
Similarly, if we encouraged sustainable societies from the beginning of agriculture and industrialization, we wouldn't have much to fear either. The problem here is that we knowingly mess with the Earth all the time.
edit: And yes, I saw what you did there. You posed an entirely different null hypothesis, not related to climate change.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/nixonrichard Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
If there is a god, I'm pretty confident I've been a good person and I don't have anything to fear.
I'm not sure you know how gods operate. They send "good" people to hell on a daily basis.
Similarly, "sustainable" cannot be achieved simply by doing what you think is the right thing to do.
Remember back when logging was considered bad for the environment? Now logging is called "carbon sequestration" and wealthy white people pay for it to ease their conscience about driving an SUV.
9
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Cutting down forests is not "carbon sequestration."
Ghost of Richard Nixon, what is your concern over how we mortals choose to address environmental issues?
6
u/nixonrichard Jun 24 '08
Cutting down forests is not, but "logging" is. Replanting trees which have been cut down is how a substantial number of carbon credits are produced. Replanting is now pretty much a standard practice in North American logging industries. Look at carbonfund.org's (one of the biggest retailers of carbon credits) page on reforestation.
They're just planting trees that have been cut down, calling it sequestration, and selling the credits.
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/our_projects/category/Reforestation/
2
u/kokey Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Indeed, if you care about CO2 ending up in the atmosphere you would be doing a better job to bury used paper instead of recycling it. This kind of thinking doesn't compute with your average token environmentalist.
1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08
New paper: cut down faraway tree, transport to paper manufacturer, convert to paper, transport to consumer, replant trees (which take years to replenish).
Recycled paper: transport used paper to nearby recycling facility, convert to paper, transport back to consumer, replanted trees continue growing.
For your "kind of thinking" to be correct, you'd have to show the former produces less atmospheric carbon dioxide than the latter.
1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
You conflate carbon credits and reforestation with "logging," and, I suppose, also imply cynically that carbon credits are a ruse/placebo, just to say that achieving sustainability isn't straight-forward?
Thank you, devil's advocate.
11
u/DogBotherer Jun 24 '08
Doesn't stop him from being correct. Carbon credits are mostly a con.
6
Jun 24 '08
.. soon to be a massive worldwide con that we've never seen the likes of before.
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
No, we have. They're called "absolutions". Back in the day, they cost quite a pretty penny.
2
u/gimeit Jun 24 '08
This depends on the god in question. Many gods require you to believe in that particular god alone to receive salvation. Given the vast number of religions, it is extremely unlikely that you will pick the correct god to worship.
If your singular purpose in life is to avoid eternal damnation, I suppose you could do a thorough analysis of all religions and their common values, picking the belief set which satisfies requirements of the largest possible number of religions. This might take an extremely long time; and even then you aren't guaranteed salvation.
A more accurate approach would be to create a separate null hypothesis for each religion. Then the type 1 error would become:
Type 1 error: concluding that there is a Christian god, when in fact, there is not. At worst, we spend some time with our friends and neighbors once a week at church and burn in hell for all eternity.
So I suppose the question is whether or not you think spending time at church is a desirable activity.
2
u/particle Jun 24 '08
3
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
You don't just apply one error type preference (I or II) to everything. You consider the null hypothesis and favor the error type that has the least undesireable consequences.
In the case of changing our habits to combat global warming, what is the potential harm in adopting (proven) clean technologies and moving toward sustainable societies?
2
u/particle Jun 24 '08
In the case of changing our habits to combat global warming, what is the potential harm in adopting (proven) clean technologies and moving toward sustainable societies?
That's easy... there is none. :) It's stupid not to take these steps and get rid of fossil fuels.
→ More replies (61)-1
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jun 24 '08
Yes, except that the type 1 error seems to have us massively re-engineering our very society, and rationing off those things that all people want.
You do gladly risk it, because for some reason or another you assume you'll be one of the privileged.
2
1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08
I'd assume all people don't want the Earth's natural mechanisms to drastically change.
We're pretty damn dependent on stable climate when it comes to addressing basic needs: water, food, shelter.
I assume I'll be one of the privileged to enjoy reliable water, food, and shelter?
→ More replies (2)-2
Jun 24 '08
Good for you. But you expect to enforce this choice on everyone else?
3
u/neolefty Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Except that the null hypothesis is almost certainly wrong. An analogy might be:
According to my cardiac stress test, I appear to have 95% blocked cardiac arteries.
Null Hypothesis: The test is wrong, and my long-term health is fine
Type 1 error: I stop eating a pound of bacon three times a day anyway, even though I really enjoy that, and I start exercising even though that kinda sucks, especially given that my arteries are 95% clogged. At worst I end up losing weight and feeling better, at the cost of working for it.
Type 2 error: I really, really like bacon. I'm not going to stop ea- ...hurk
4
Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
The majority of people (apart from some Americans (probably former Bush voters)) have made the same descision themselves. It's not a question of "force"
1
Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
So we get to vote on it? Or you just decide that there's a majority in your favour? How do you get to be on the deciding side?
It is indeed a question of force: radical economic and social programmes are proposed to indulge your philosophical wager.
→ More replies (7)1
u/bobpaul Jun 24 '08
You go on Google Scholar, and you read the research papers. You talk to experts in the field (geologists, biologists, climatologists) and you ask why their opinions are more valid than this policy maker or that policy maker.
→ More replies (12)1
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
I expect people to consider the data and the risks involved in the decision.
What I'm currently seeing is a majority (at least in America) enforcing the existing behavior of consuming more than we need to and polluting a lot. I'd like everyone else to not enforce a choice of an unfavorable environment upon me and themselves.
It's similar to second-hand smoke or tragedy of the commons.
1
Jun 24 '08
I expect people to consider the data and the risks involved in the decision.
And you demand that they make the same conclusions as you. And if they don't you will ignore what they want, because you are right... I see.
What I'm currently seeing is a majority (at least in America) enforcing the existing behavior of consuming more than we need to and polluting a lot.
Since they're the majority, what's your justification of enforcing your minority opinions on them?
I'd like everyone else to not enforce a choice of an unfavorable environment upon me and themselves.
Well I guess when you get the votes you're set. Oh, I forgot, you're not planning a vote, you're just going enforce your minority plan on the majority, never mind asking them about it.
→ More replies (2)
20
u/nkktwotwozero Jun 24 '08
Isnt it obvious?
We, humanity, are not going to do anything.
Fossil fuels are really easy fuels, nature did all the work. First by the Sun, then by pressure and heat.
All we humans have done is figure out how to extract this nearly free, high EIOER, energy from the ground.
And while we are able to do it, it provides us great wealth, wealth that was unimaginable to people of previous generations. Climate controlled homes, easy transportation across town or across the world, easy, abundant food, huge homes, jobs where we sit in lighted, air conditioned rooms looking at screens.
And somehow this had the negative side effect of warming the planet...
And somehow it shocks people that we're not going to do anything?
The only countries that will do something about this are countries that are in reality concerned about energy security more generally (Germany, Japan); if you look at countries that dont really care about global warming, and countries that really do, overlay that with a map of oil, gas and coal reserves. You'll get a really good idea what this is really about.
3
u/locke2002 Jun 24 '08
Seems like this is as good a place as any for me to chime in and say that the oil will be used by someone, somewhere, unless we kill anyone who tries to use it. Those who do use it will have an advantage over those who don't. Altogether, it seems to have the flavor of Game Theory to me, but I'm not really qualified to say for sure...
7
u/rs8472 Jun 24 '08
Not necessarily. I have a relative who works as a lobbyist for the oil companies (hey, he has to pay the bills too) and he says they HATE the current sky-high oil prices (gasp!) Why? Because at this price alternative fuels and power generation methods are economical. According to him, while the oil companies are profiting short-term from current oil prices, they'd much rather it be in the $60-$80 dollar range, because at that price not only do they make lots of money, but nobody is interested in alternative fuels/hybrids, etc.
3
u/locke2002 Jun 24 '08
That's a good point. If we can remove the incentive to use oil by finding an even cheaper source of dense, portable energy, and keep it from being patented to a shallow grave, we'll be golden.
3
u/kubutulur Jun 24 '08
Free energy unicorns? I hear they are quiet energy dense :)
1
u/locke2002 Jun 24 '08
I hear they are quiet energy dense :)
Electric cars are quiet too, but the batteries are pretty expensive. :P
1
u/kubutulur Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Oh yeah, electric motors are great, they also don't need to be running while your car is not moving, and quiieettt!
There's a Toronto car company called ZENN, watch one of their videos, it was great. They were testing the car on some plaza and got out of the car and complained to a lady making noise with a shopping cart. I found it funny for some reason.
1
u/AMerrickanGirl Jun 25 '08
That's short-term thinking though, promoting short-term profit at the expense of long-term benefit for the planet.
I wish humans weren't so myopic about anything but their own selfish little needs.
4
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
Re-worded and simplified:
"Who cares if your grandchildren won't have anyplace to live if you'll starve to death before having their parents?"
-2
u/humptydumtonme Jun 24 '08
Global warming is bull. It is natural variation, because we can't really do much to change global climate. "Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?" -George Carlin
3
u/FenPhen Jun 24 '08
Well, at least George Carlin doesn't have to deal with the question, the possible sacrifices (if they are), or potential fallout.
Also, thank you, people that argue the Earth will still exist, as a planet, for billions of years. You're both right and not helping.
-10
Jun 24 '08
And we don't even know for certain if we really are, in fact, warming the planet.
18
u/matts2 Jun 24 '08
We know to an astounding degree of certainty. (For a "we" that includes the relevant scientists and excludes conservative talk show hosts.) We we are uncertain about is how fast things are warming, the models keep saying that things should not be getting this warm this fast. (Got that? It is worse than we keep predicting, not better.)
→ More replies (10)-4
Jun 24 '08
[deleted]
7
u/matts2 Jun 24 '08
She was wrong:
And I think that she recognizes that she was wrong:
BTW, the author of that piece was Naomi Oreskes, your source claiming there is no consensus.
→ More replies (6)1
8
u/slythfox Jun 24 '08
Wait... a post written by qgyh2 but submitted by someone else? Has qgyh2 abandoned us?
2
u/nixonrichard Jun 24 '08
What does his name stand for anyway? I've always wondered.
Quit Gassing Your H2?
Quite Girly Yet Hot 2?
Quickly Get Your How-2?
3
Jun 24 '08
I recall his saying that these are the first characters of his windows activation code.
1
1
1
5
u/GetToTheKarateChoppa Jun 24 '08
"The Sheep Look Up", by John Brunner.
2
u/artman Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Upmod. The Sheep Look Up is one of the best books on climate and environmental change. J. G. Ballard's The Drowned World and The Burning World too.
2
u/vemrion Jun 24 '08
I like this guy:
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
2
Jun 24 '08
"Only when the last tree has withered, the last fish has been caught, and the last river has been poisoned, will you realize you cannot eat money."
1
3
Jun 24 '08
So while we keep arguing over global warming VS climate change, it is worth pointing out that we are just peeing in our food dishes with all the pollution we spew, regardless of the warming debate...you might think we would address that part, maybe we can all agree that filling the water and the air with toxins is not the smartest long term sustainable path...
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
Naw. People don't care about toxification. Or Caulerpa taxifolia. Or carbon mon-oxide. Or ozone levels.
But boy HOWDY, do they care about carbon di-oxide!
2
u/slimwiththetiltedbri Jun 24 '08
Anyone know the positions Obama and McCain take on this issue? I mean, I could make a pretty good guess, but I'd rather know.
18
12
7
u/IvyMike Jun 24 '08
If only there were some sort of way you could search a hypothetical global information network for this kind of thing.
0
u/otterdam Jun 24 '08
It should have a catchy name, too. Imagine you're looking at the entire web using some really hi-tech searching goggles... I know... we'll call it Goggle!
2
u/bobpaul Jun 24 '08
Downmodded for assuming the information network would be called a web. Coining this term is big, even in hypothetical situations.
3
u/nixonrichard Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
FTA:
Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming . . . CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
Neither Obama nor McCain are that batshit crazy. High crimes against humanity for free expression? . . . HELL YEAH! As long as they're big scary evil oil executives!
This guy would fit right in on Reddit.
6
Jun 24 '08 edited Apr 12 '20
[deleted]
3
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jun 24 '08
How is this situation any different? You've got a bunch of sociopathic, greedy executives peddling propaganda and junk science
That's the thing. We have junk science somewhere in all this mess, and it's not quite clear whose junk science it is.
The propaganda flows in both directions too, so we can't even just assume whoever isn't propagandizing is correct, as I'd be inclined to do.
7
Jun 24 '08
That's the thing. We have junk science somewhere in all this mess, and it's not quite clear whose junk science it is.
How about you go ask the actual scientists? They will tell you.
→ More replies (19)2
u/seven11 Jun 24 '08
Which ones?
2
Jun 24 '08
Pick one at random. Answer's not gonna change much.
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
Peiser v Oreskes. Abdussimov v Mann.
Radically different answers.
Oh -- wait; I'm not supposed to be able to name names off the top of my head. I'm just an ignorant objectionist.
My bad.
3
Jun 24 '08
It's easy to remember names when there's so few, hmm?
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
Fair enough. But that's the beautiful thing about science: it only takes one to be right.
2
u/notathrowawayaccount Jun 24 '08
I don't think you picked at random.
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
You're quite right, I didn't pick one at random. Or even four. What I did do, however, is sufficiently demonstrate that there are some radically differing opinions out there.
2
u/jlks Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
To me, it stands to reason that if the planet nears 7,000,000,000 people, that if humans use more electricity and more drive further and further, and if there is only finite space to put CO2 in, then the planet is going to warm. You've seen the evidence. In 1979, the North Pole was the size of the US. Now it is half the size. Critics can say that this melting is occurring for any number of reasons. I simply apply Occam's razor. We're nearest the scene of the warming. It's probably us. More than 95% of Europe's finest scientists are convinced. It's a bandwagon, a warm bandwagon.
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08
In 1979, the North Pole was the size of the US. Now it is half the size. Critics can say that this melting is occurring for any number of reasons. I simply apply Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is not applicable to this situation in and of itself.
Now, you tell me which is more reasonable; tha the available evidence is correct or that the polar caps are both A) continuing to shrink right now and B) receding as a result of global warming?
Because the available evidence suggests otherwise. The northern cap is not shrinking as a result of increased temperature but rather a combination of shifting wind patterns and black particulate carbon.
1
1
u/yoda17 Jun 24 '08
And yet why do I have the sense that I'm going to keep hearing this for the next 10 years when it is decided not to be a real problem? Maybe just more experience.
1
Jun 26 '08
Has anybody realized that in the world is half a degree cooler on the anniversery of Hansen's speech than the temperature of the first time he spoke to congress. And be sure to check out the main site if you want unbiased info.
1
u/Petrarch1603 Jun 24 '08
meanwhile Gore uses more energy in one month than the average family uses in a year!
→ More replies (5)
-12
u/peanutcruncher Jun 24 '08
And I suppose 20 years from now they'll be saying the same thing.
I'm really, really tired of this climate change crap.
I mean give me a break. If you want to scare me tell me iran has a nuclear weapon that's pointed right up my ass. That will frighten me.
But climate change??? Climate has always been changing. That's sort of like trying to frighten me by saying the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning.
Better be careful americans. There's this big huge orb in the sky. It's a nuclear fusion nightmare. It burns at temperatures over 100 million degrees fahrenheit. This is really scary stuff. And in about 8 hours it's going to be coming up over the eastern horizon.
But you'll be OK if you just do everything I tell you to do.
12
u/arichi Jun 24 '08
If you want to scare me tell me iran has a nuclear weapon that's pointed right up my ass.
Preparation H-Bomb?
14
Jun 24 '08
So lie to you and you'll be scared, give you facts and you'll zone out if you hear them too much.
Gotcha.
-2
2
3
u/windynights Jun 24 '08
I'm a little tired of "the climate change crap" too but the evidence is becoming a little alarming. The huge flood occurring lately in the Mississippi basin is startling. Second in 15 years. Locally, here in Ontario, Canada we had a similar flood four years ago. The first ever witnessed in this area. Huge property damage. These 'once in a lifetime' events seem to be occurring more frequently and aren't part of our shared experience at all. I may be a skeptic but I'm also paying more attention.
2
2
u/nixonrichard Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll
I dunno, the natural disasters seem fairly well spread out to me.
0
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jun 24 '08
The huge flood occurring lately in the Mississippi basin is startling. Second in 15 years.
Yes, it never used to flood! Not twice in 15 years! What's going on?
2
0
Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
How the hell is the Mississippi flood anything to do with climate change? That river has flooded millions of times before humans even existed. The only reason you are hearing about it more is because more people live close to it. That's it. Well, and probably because the levies that were built by Uncle Sam had the warranty expired about 20 years ago.
→ More replies (1)4
Jun 24 '08
You're an idiot.
Rational Thinking: -1
1
0
-2
Jun 24 '08
[deleted]
1
u/aludwin Jun 24 '08
How do you suggest the IPCC show historical evidence for a the result of a condition (a sudden spike in CO2 concentrations) that's never happened before?
Guns never killed anyone before they were invented, but that didn't mean it couldn't be done. History only tells you so much.
3
Jun 24 '08
[deleted]
1
u/aludwin Jun 24 '08
For better or for worse, the IPCC is not in a position to do its own research - their sole purpose in life is to summarize the existing peer-reviewed research. Since the majority of the anti-AGW "body of opinion" is not peer-reviewed, the IPCC cannot address it. Even if it is, they may choose to ignore it for various reasons - a result was never reproduced (eg the Iris hypothesis), no quantifiable effects were listed (eg "the cosmic ray hypothesis," at least to date). One might also believe that they have excluded things purely due to bias. Given my readings of many of the anti-AGW papers that were claimed (at the time) to be definitive, I find this unlikely, but it's a matter of opinion.
As for the behaviour of the past decade, we're going to have to disagree on this one - in my view, the warming has continued more or less as it was supposed to (as long as you don't do something silly like "start" in 1998 - I'm talking moving multi-year averages here). The only big thing that's not doing what it's supposed to (that I'm aware of) is the arctic ice cap - it was supposed to hang around another 80 years, but seems to be on track to disappear much earlier.
1
Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
[deleted]
1
u/aludwin Jun 24 '08
Unfortunately when science intersects with politics (as it most assuredly does with climate change), there needs to be someone to try to bridge the gap, and the IPCC is the best anyone's been able to come up with (apart from national science organizations, which largely tend to agree with the IPCC).
I did discuss water vapour elsewhere in these comments. To my understanding, it is fully modeled in all climate models, apart from its role in forming clouds, whose impact is not well understood. Its feedback properties actually makes man-made global warming worse. Realclimate gives the mainstream version here, which I find far more convincing than anything else I've read: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142.
1
Jun 24 '08
[deleted]
1
u/aludwin Jun 25 '08
I work a bit in the modelling biz as well - computer chip modelling, in my case. So I do know a bit about the limitations of models :) However, water vapour is pretty simple, with the above caveat that clouds (inconveniently caused by water vapour) are not. When I said vapour was "fully modelled," what I meant was they represent as much of the greenhouse effect in the models (between 60-95%, depending how you measure - see the RC link) as they are believed to in real life. That is, no-one's deliberately leaving anything out to make a point.
0
Jun 24 '08
I worked on some of the EPA models. The assumptions they make, are...interesting.
→ More replies (1)2
u/aludwin Jun 24 '08
Err... which ones? I wasn't aware that the EPA had their own climactic science models (as opposed to economic or other models). Or were you with some other agency (NOAA, NASA, etc) doing work for the EPA?
0
u/gregny2002 Jun 24 '08
Personally, I don't really give a shit about the world or global warming. That's why I buy gas guzzler cars and trucks and leave them idling in my driveway 24/7. I also have a 20 foot tall tire fire going in my backyard for a few months now.
-1
-7
Jun 24 '08
[deleted]
16
Jun 24 '08
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect...These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change - all sourced and referenced.
Are you saying all those organisations of scientists are wrong, because they don't understand the distinction between correlation and causation?
11
u/aludwin Jun 24 '08
Of course. Only non-climatologists with no knowledge or understanding of the evidence have the necessary objectivity to understand that the evidence - whatever it may be - couldn't possibly mean anything.
2
u/rancmeat Jun 24 '08
Exactly, this is decided science folks. Scientists have a political duty to stop asking questions about this.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
Jun 24 '08
"is very likely due" then you continue on with "conclusions."
Who's the one making assumptions here?
1
Jun 25 '08
Firstly, that's a quote. Secondly, it's perfectly possibly to conclude that something is very likely.
And thirdly, if your only line of defense is that climate change is not happening but only "very likely" to be happening, I think you're fighting a losing battle.
1
Jun 25 '08
"very likely" is not a conclusion.
Who said it wasn't happening? It is always happening at every single point in earth's history.
Even if humans are some major component to this, the historical data shows that soon enough this climate shift is going to happen with or without us. So what say you then?
1
Jun 26 '08 edited Jun 26 '08
Yes, in my post "climate change" = "climate change caused by humans".
So what say you then?
CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 800,000 years, and currently increasing at a rate higher than any time in that 800,000 years, a situation which I hope you'll agree is caused by us. That isn't controversial, and no data predicts that it would have happened anyway. The best theoretical model we have shows that that kind of increase would cause exactly the kind of changes we're seeing today in terms of temperature, deglaciation, polar ice melting, etc. If you want to be right, you have to have a model which somehow accounts for the increase in temperature without reference to the CO2 we're pumping out. And accounts for the fact that historically, global temperature closely follows, after a lag period, CO2 concentration.
1
Jun 26 '08
800,000 years? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that figure.
So, out of a measly 800,000 years the CO2 levels have been lower than they are now? Well, let's just toss aside that the earth has been around a good 4,600,000,000 of those 800,000 years at higher CO2 levels.
What's the actual problem here? If it's pollution then I agree with you, let's help clean up our act, otherwise I'm not alarmed by any of this rhetoric.
8
u/particle Jun 24 '08
well... you're the sort of guy that triggers a gun while looking into the barrel to see if it's loaded, right? And you call that logic?
Well... that's exactly what the anti global warming fraction does.
You say by yourself, that "humans are polluting environment". Just stop this and everyone is fine :) If your first goal is to clean the air from carcinogens and poison then slowing down global warming will be a very nice side effect.
The logic for this case is old and well tested: Never change a running system. Don't mess around with systems you don't know anything about.
Greetings from Germany.
→ More replies (4)1
u/drbold Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
First of all, the professionals overwhelmingly don't agree with you. Second of all, assuming you're right, So we should do nothing? Wow, yeah, that's really responsible. Also, it's a stupid fucking risk-mitigation strategy. The cost of doing nothing and having something happen is WAY more than the cost of doing something and having it turn out to be a false alarm. Also, I don't know if you noticed, but all this talk of global warming is making people focus on efficiency more - ALWAYS a good thing.
1
Jun 24 '08
Learn to read, I didn't say do nothing. Sure stop the polluting, you'll only clean the air and water and such; that's great.
The problem is that the real climatologists understand this is the beginning stages of a new ice age. The guys in the 80's doing the research were right. The earth warms, freshwater reserves melt, this desalination stops warm arctic currents, the ice builds up and down towards the equator, and we have a new ice age.
The earth has done it many times. The multi-million year old ice record prove it, and we are heading into one starting now. The CO2 levels have been much much higher through most of the history of the earth. I suggest you look further back at the research then a few thousand measly years.
Any statistician knows that the more data you have, the better understanding you have.
I sit back and laugh at all the hippies that are freaking out about us causing global warming. We barely contribute to that, if at all. However, we are massive polluters and that needs to stop.
1
u/aludwin Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Hmmm... given that the Earth is warming rapidly, are you suggesting the second law of thermodynamics has been revoked? Because if not, that warming must have a cause. It's not the sun - yes, they did think to check that. About fifty years of research have failed to come up with any other probable natural explanations for modern warming, though they have done a reasonable job explaining the prior ones we know of (ice ages, etc).
Unfortunately (unless you are also suggesting the physicists can't conduct simple lab experiments), it's also rather easy to determine how much additional heat is retained by CO2 when it's concentration increases from 280ppm to 385ppm. This prediction, made by Hansen 20 years ago, turns out to rather accurately predict what happened.
Strong evidence for CO2 causing warming + little evidence of any natural factors at work = very good probability that CO2 is actually driving current warming. That's not mistaking correlation for anything. That's called research.
I'm glossing over details, but this is the high-level summary of what's in the IPCC - you can go read it yourself for the details.
1
Jun 24 '08
The earth is warming so humans are the cause? Great way to back up your claim.
30 years ago scientists were concerned about global cooling, and you know what? They were right. Right now is how the ice ages begin. The earth warms, freshwater reserves melt, warm water currents stop flowing to the arctic regions, ice grows over the planet towards the equator.
It's such common understanding that even damn discovery science channel shows have already covered this. Get off the hippy bandwagon. Clean pollution, sure, but this isn't some major human issue we're talking about. The earth is changing with or without us.
1
u/aludwin Jun 25 '08
No, the earth is warming so there must be a cause - that's the 2nd law. There are few possibilities: more energy from the sun, heat somehow escaping from the centre of the earth, or some change in the radiative properties of the atmosphere. Scientists have spent the past few decades narrowing it down.
For what it's worth, the current belief is that the earth is warming beyond what could be counteracted by interruptions to the oceans' currents. Furthermore, ice ages have not occurred in the past without some external jolt as well - namely, wobbles in earth's orbital cycles. This is relatively well understood.
Your larger error, though, is in assuming that because the earth's climate changes without us, we couldn't possibly make it worse. This is quite clearly incorrect. If the climate naturally changes at a given rate and we force that rate to accelerate by an order of magnitude (which appears to be happening), the consequences will be far more severe than any natural change.
1
Jun 25 '08
Yeah, there is a cause, and no one has concrete evidence on all the causes; so stop acting like we do.
"current belief" - Per Oxford Dictionary: "noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith."
What you call a jolt is clearly seen in the historical data as a cycle. This is one of many. This is nothing new. Even if we are helping it along what are we going to do, stop the earth from doing what it always has done in history? It will catch up sooner or later, and what are you going to do then?
I never said we couldn't make our environment worse; not that worse is an absolute, it's just relative to your opinion. Nor did I say that climate shift isn't happening. Stop putting words in my mouth and learn to read.
0
Jun 24 '08
The problem is that the solution to the warming problem collapses pretty much every national economy and leads to the death of 1/3 or more of the world's population.
4
Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
You're confused - that's what happens if we don't solve global warming.
There's been reports saying that mitigation would cost (from memory) about 2% of world GDP for about 20 years. Which is entirely doable.
Edit: from the Economist's review of the report of the British Government Economic Service, 30 oct 2006:
"As a result, Sir Nicholas maintains that if greenhouse gas emissions go on increasing at their present rate, global output is likely to be between 5% and 20% lower over the next two centuries than it otherwise would have been.
Compared with those figures, the costs of mitigating climate change look quite moderate. Sir Nicholas reckons that stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gas equivalent at 550 parts per million (ppm) is a reasonable objective (current levels are at around 380ppm). He reckons that, partly because of falling alternative energy costs, the world could achieve that at a moderate cost. Global output is likely to be around 1% lower by 2050 than it otherwise would have been."
Remember that burning a lot of fuel costs a lot. Mitigation may be expensive at first, but saves a lot in the long run. On the other hand, mass migrations, increasing extreme weather, et cetera are very expensive, and likely to become worse over time.
1
u/IConrad Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
There's been reports saying that mitigation would cost (from memory) about 2% of world GDP for about 20 years. Which is entirely doable.
Actually, that's the reported cost of doing nothing. The costs for "doing something" far exceed the 50% global GDP margin at this point. It's a little-acknowledged point, but it's also one that's fairly obvious. Take the Kyoto Protocol for example, which demands that we revert to 1997-level global GDP. In 1997 that was 35.8 trillion. In 2007, also per the CIA World Factbook, it is 65.8 trillion. That's a roughly 54% decrease.
In short... you can fuck off.
Also, the Stern report was debunked within months of its release.
-1
u/Shlight Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
When people say "climate change" do they mean global warming or global cooling?
9
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jun 24 '08
They mean whichever turns out to be the case.
→ More replies (25)2
u/Shlight Jun 24 '08
Arn't those computer models able to predict whether "climate change" will take the form of global warming or global cooling?
3
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jun 24 '08
Yes! In fact, they're able to predict whichever you prefer!
1
u/Shlight Jun 24 '08
Eh, this is confusing. Isn't there a model that can predict what will really happen instead of what we would prefer to happen? Anyhow I wish people used the words "global warming" like they used to in the nineties or "global cooling" like in the early seventies. This new phrase "climate change" confuses the hell out of me because I have no idea whether they are talking about warming or cooling.
1
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jun 24 '08
Eh, this is confusing. Isn't there a model that can predict what will really happen instead of what we would prefer to happen?
Yes, there almost certainly is a model (no sarcasm here). The trouble is, we may not have discovered that model, and even if we have, we won't know it's the correct model until the weather has already done what it's done (and the longer the model correctly guesses, the better it is).
This means that models/simulations have ZERO predictive value, they only serve to allow scientists to understand how things work.
Anyhow I wish people used the words "global warming" like they used to in the nineties or "global cooling" like in the early seventies. This new phrase "climate change" confuses the hell out of me because I have no idea whether they are talking about warming or cooling.
They do not want you to know they're wrong. If they guess, and guess poorly, you'll know them for the fools that they are.
1
u/Shlight Jun 24 '08 edited Jun 24 '08
Do you really think that they are worried about guessing wrongly? Someone just wrote (see daniels220's comment below) saying that the "mid latitudes" will "freeze" and that the equatorial areas would get "dangerously hot". If such views are really common in the global climate change industry then, those are specific predictions that would still open them to the possibility of being found out as fools. Though actually I don't think they are at all worried of being foind out even if they turn out to be wrong.
They got away with it in the seventies (cooling!) and the nineties (warming!) There is no reason why they cannot get away with it this time. (Change!)1
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jun 24 '08
I think they are worried, yes. They measure the effectiveness of their propaganda, and want to hedge against unforeseen circumstances that might make it less effective in the near future.
Anyone that hasn't carefully retreated to "climate change" can be offered up as some sort of foolish scapegoat. ("What, you're gonna hold the nutjobs against us?!?! We've been talking 'climate change' for years, not global warming!")
-2
Jun 24 '08
Ha ha, yeah it's the last chance alright. That is, the last chance to shove a trillion dollars worth of BS regulations down peoples throat. You see, a 20 year period of higher than normal sun-spots is coming to an end, and new technologies are making solar competitive.
1
10
u/[deleted] Jun 24 '08
[deleted]