Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

It seems to me the result of the court case was not that evolution was real, it was that he was allowed to teach it (Or actually specifically wasn't allowed to teach it since he lost the initial case but won on appeal).

Scopes never won, the initial ruling was overturned on technical issue after the court had ruled against Scopes, no retrial was ever convened.

 

[Trakar]

I think the point is that those who would say that the law has no place in having a hearing against science today, would be applauding the actions of Scope in breaking down the barriers of his day, by using the court for science.

There is a level of hypocrisy which is pretty obvious.

Again the court wasn't ruling on the science, it was ruling on whether or not the teacher could teach a curriculum that was outside that ordered and approved by the school district.

 

[Trakar]

It's possible extra CO2 is good. It's possible warming is good. That the GW is being used as a rationale for massive government intervention in the economy, with all the attendant back-room deals and political "donations" to get back out of the way, as per every other issue through human history, is not.

It's probable GW is not as bad, at its worst, as slowing the economy through government intervention would be, if you measure actual quality and length of life, and technological advancement rates.


So, yes, GW or AGW is not as bad as the "cure".

Except for the fact that the real world doesn't conform to your "what if" musings and conspiracy insinuations, and reality demonstrates a much more concerning set of issues and consequences

 

[Mikemcc]

There weren't? Then what is the source of this quote from the financial post opinion piece?



I would call that pretty gratuitous, but I'd like to know the context of the quote.

Dyson is quoted in the NY Times article by:

It should perhaps be pointed out that Dyson's ruminations on biology are somewhat out of his region of expertise, which is astronomical physics and space habitats. The effects of increased CO2 are bound by what the trees in the world are evolved to expect, regardless of how much they may "like" it. Gratuitously doubling that percentage is probably not going to have good effects overall, sort of like saying that humans need and like water, so let's fill the atmosphere with it. What are we going to do with all those carbon-eating trees, BTW? Burn 'em for fuel? Leave them to rot in the forest where they fall? Sounds self-defeating.

It sounds to me like Dyson was working when someone asked him out of the blue about global warming and he said the first thing that popped into his mind. And now it's reported as him "coming out of the closet".

Even engineering is outside Dyson's field of expertise. He has an arts background. He had one good idea and has thrashed it to death with some pretty crap designs (ever wanted to simply change the power lead without needing the specialst tools to get at the terminal blocks)...

 

[a_unique_person]

It's possible extra CO2 is good. It's possible warming is good. That the GW is being used as a rationale for massive government intervention in the economy, with all the attendant back-room deals and political "donations" to get back out of the way, as per every other issue through human history, is not.

It's probable GW is not as bad, at its worst, as slowing the economy through government intervention would be, if you measure actual quality and length of life, and technological advancement rates.


So, yes, GW or AGW is not as bad as the "cure".

The problem is complex. It's not just a matter of if on average it's a few degrees warmer. If that's all it was, we could all just pack up and go home. The problem is in getting people to understand the subtle complexities of the consequences, and that various aspects will play out over centuries or millenia. We won't have to worry about the consequences, but this generation will go down in history in infamy, for the fact that they were more than capable of understanding the problem, and dealing with it before it became irreversible.

Much of the consequences have to do with the biological response. Evolution results in many species optimising themselves to their environment. Change that environment, and they suffer in comparison to species that are more broadly adapted and better able to cope with unstable environments. Plants have to 'migrate' to cooler climates, weeds take advantage of unstable conditions. Posts already been made showing the movement of commercial crops in the USA, as warming has occurred.

If there is nowhere to migrate to, such as the polar bear, or species on the south of Australia, it's goodbye. Similarly for species confined to mountain areas. Then they have to be able to migrate across areas that have been urbanised, which be impossible.

There is also the question of extremes of temperature. Species will be able to tolerate, say, a week of over 40C. If that becomes over a week, they are then under extreme stress. Add in a day of say 47C, and you have species that are under even more stress. This is what is starting to happen now. The average may be going up only a few degrees, but the events that are hidden in that average will be significant.

There is also ocean acidification. Many species depend on the chemistry of the ocean to build their carbon based skeletons and shells. Alter that chemistry, and they will be at a disadvantage to other species.

Evolution, which will adapt to change, is usually a lot slower than these changes are occurring at. This will result in species being under extreme stress.

All this will be happening when many species are already under extreme stress due to other direct actions from us that have nothing to do with AGW. Our urbanisation, farming and cities are already causing a mass extinction event.

The outlook is very bleak if you look beyond the average global temperature.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the point is that those who would say that the law has no place in having a hearing against science today, would be applauding the actions of Scope in breaking down the barriers of his day, by using the court for science.

There is a level of hypocrisy which is pretty obvious.

Only if you show a poster who claimed that Scopes was a triumph for science, who also said that the SCOTUS decisions was not.

And the SCOTUS ruling was on state courts standing to control carbon. The EPA can still do so as that is the current status in the courts, so at this time the SCOTUS decision is NOT about science.

Got more than straw AA Alfie, I know you can do better than making this false dichotomies and exaggerated ironies.

So who are these “those”? in your sentence?

Lets see what does the record say about the Scopes trial?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial#End_of_the_trial

Scopes was found guilty, but the verdict was overturned on a technicality and he was never brought back to trial.
….
Nevertheless, having found the statute to be constitutional, the court set aside the conviction on appeal because of a legal technicality: the jury should have decided the fine, not the judge, since under the state constitution, Tennessee judges could not at that time set fines above $50, and the Butler Act specified a minimum fine of $100

So double straw on Mhaze and lesser on you, Scopes was FOUND GUILTY, the appeal UPHELD the decision.

So guess what the Scopes trial found against science.

Oh the irony.

 

[shadron]

It's possible extra CO2 is good. It's possible warming is good. That the GW is being used as a rationale for massive government intervention in the economy, with all the attendant back-room deals and political "donations" to get back out of the way, as per every other issue through human history, is not.

It's probable GW is not as bad, at its worst, as slowing the economy through government intervention would be, if you measure actual quality and length of life, and technological advancement rates.


So, yes, GW or AGW is not as bad as the "cure".

Well, let's see: that's a "possible", another "possible", and a "probable", resulting in a "yes, let's see it my way". If you'd expressed any biological or atmospheric physics expertise at any point, then such superficial analysis of climate results vs politics/economics might be useful. As it is, I don't think I'll swallow that.

It's possible doubling CO2 is good [for plants]. It's also possible that it isn't.

 

[Furcifer]

The problem is complex. It's not just a matter of if on average it's a few degrees warmer. If that's all it was, we could all just pack up and go home. The problem is in getting people to understand the subtle complexities of the consequences, and that various aspects will play out over centuries or millenia. We won't have to worry about the consequences, but this generation will go down in history in infamy, for the fact that they were more than capable of understanding the problem, and dealing with it before it became irreversible.

Much of the consequences have to do with the biological response. Evolution results in many species optimising themselves to their environment. Change that environment, and they suffer in comparison to species that are more broadly adapted and better able to cope with unstable environments. Plants have to 'migrate' to cooler climates, weeds take advantage of unstable conditions. Posts already been made showing the movement of commercial crops in the USA, as warming has occurred.

If there is nowhere to migrate to, such as the polar bear, or species on the south of Australia, it's goodbye. Similarly for species confined to mountain areas. Then they have to be able to migrate across areas that have been urbanised, which be impossible.

There is also the question of extremes of temperature. Species will be able to tolerate, say, a week of over 40C. If that becomes over a week, they are then under extreme stress. Add in a day of say 47C, and you have species that are under even more stress. This is what is starting to happen now. The average may be going up only a few degrees, but the events that are hidden in that average will be significant.

There is also ocean acidification. Many species depend on the chemistry of the ocean to build their carbon based skeletons and shells. Alter that chemistry, and they will be at a disadvantage to other species.

Evolution, which will adapt to change, is usually a lot slower than these changes are occurring at. This will result in species being under extreme stress.

All this will be happening when many species are already under extreme stress due to other direct actions from us that have nothing to do with AGW. Our urbanisation, farming and cities are already causing a mass extinction event.

The outlook is very bleak if you look beyond the average global temperature.

Welcome to the human race

I think it's amusing you can sit in the comfort of your home, typing on your computer, not wanting for food or water and expecting to live until you're 80, and talk seriously about how bleak the future is because it might be a degree or two warmer in 100 years

I think bleak is more a matter of perspective.

 

[Mikemcc]

Welcome to the human race

I think it's amusing you can sit in the comfort of your home, typing on your computer, not wanting for food or water and expecting to live until you're 80, and talk seriously about how bleak the future is because it might be a degree or two warmer in 100 years

I think bleak is more a matter of perspective.

If it was as simple as just a couple of degrees warmer, it would be simple. But it's not. It's more extremes, especially heatwaves (such as those last year that devestated the Russian wheat crop). It's higher sea levels meaning more floods, or more having to be spend reinforcing flood defences. It's increased precipation in some areas and droughts in others that can affect crop growths. It's the loss in bio-diversity, especially at the lower end of the food chain.

 

[Furcifer]

If it was as simple as just a couple of degrees warmer, it would be simple. But it's not. It's more extremes, especially heatwaves (such as those last year that devestated the Russian wheat crop). It's higher sea levels meaning more floods, or more having to be spend reinforcing flood defences. It's increased precipation in some areas and droughts in others that can affect crop growths. It's the loss in bio-diversity, especially at the lower end of the food chain.

Just a new set of challenges to overcome. At worst climate change means it won't be as easy, but it's nothing new.
Climate change is an accident, as result of us just doing what we do as humans. Wait until we begin trying to change the climate if and when it becomes necessary. The poor thing doesn't stand a chance.
I doubt if it will ever come to that, we have a well demonstrated history of adapting to change.
Biodiversity is nice, but it's pretty clear the cost of being human comes by way of reducing the number of plants and animals on this planet. If it makes you feel any better you can think of homo sapiens as an "extinction level event". This planet is young and has many years ahead of it to diversify once we're gone. Perhaps the planet will try again at another sentient species that can co-exist with the other plants and animals on this planet. Humans can't, we change things wherever we go.
Anyhow, I can see your concern. I can even appreciate it. I just think your concern comes from a distorted world view. It's like you've taken this romanticized mental snap shot of the world as it was 500 years ago, with its untouched frontiers and spectacular biodiversity. And you want to keep this world as you see it in your mind, but you forget how it was 500 years ago, people with no education and no medical,struggling every day just to survive and live out their measly 40 years on this planet and if they're lucky have a child or two with their second cousin live to see their procreating years.
I've come to realize if I want to retire and live out my years on a beach somewhere happy and disease free I'm not going to be able to watch the wild dodo in its natural habitat. Well not exactly, but you get the general gist of it

 

[mhaze]

Well, let's see: that's a "possible", another "possible", and a "probable", resulting in a "yes, let's see it my way". ...It's possible doubling CO2 is good [for plants]. It's also possible that it isn't.

Umm, not it is not possible that it isn't good. The subject is well understood, from industries you might have heard of .... farming???

Optimal Co2 for greenhouses is 1000-2000 ppm, while atmospheric is 380 or so.

Let's please not be ridiculous or pedantic in the holding of a position, okay?

 

[Halsu]

There isn't "overwhelming scientific consensus", what there is is about 97% of scientists agreeing in a poll that the Earth has warmed about a degree and a half in the last 150 years due to the increase in CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels.

There's a huge difference between "scientific consensus" and scientists sharing an opinion based on the facts.

Now you lost me... what exactly would be your definition of a "an overwhelming scientific consensus", if not the above isn't good enough?

 

[a_unique_person]

Welcome to the human race

I think it's amusing you can sit in the comfort of your home, typing on your computer, not wanting for food or water and expecting to live until you're 80, and talk seriously about how bleak the future is because it might be a degree or two warmer in 100 years

I think bleak is more a matter of perspective.

Did you read a single point I just made? It's not just about us, we are only one species, and the average temperature is just a very simplified measurement of what is happening in a global climate. It's like looking at the speed of a jet liner and deciding that everything is ok because it is above stalling speed. It's a lot more complex than that.

 

[Zeph]

It's possible extra CO2 is good. It's possible warming is good.

OK, you are asserting two hypotheses, yes? If your hypotheses were true, then we should accept or even encourage increased CO2 emission and other GHG which raised the temperature.

It would behoove society for scientists to weigh the scientific evidence supporting and contradicticting those hypotheses before taking or avoiding actions based on that hypothesis. On the other hand, if your hypotheses are false, it would be folly to act or fail to act based on them.

Q: What level of scientific consensus in favor or your hypotheses should be required before they can be the basis for decisions about action or inaction?

The most blatent dysfunction I see in the debates of global warming is staggering differences in the level of evidence or "consensus" expected. On one hand, those who doubt AGW tend to discount any degree of scientific consensus short of unanimity as "nothing is scientifically settled well enough to guide prudent decision making" - a nearly impossible standard to meet. But on the other side, these doubters make frequent assertions like:

It's probable GW is not as bad, at its worst, as slowing the economy through government intervention would be, if you measure actual quality and length of life, and technological advancement rates.

Statements of this sort are generally taken by AGW doubters to be so obviously true that no give and take of weighing scientific evidence pro and con is needed, much less applying a standard of "skepticism" towards that statement until 100% of the scientific community agrees with it.

We all have "confirmation bias", and in fact there is good evolutionary reason for that to be part of our psyche (it would be a waste of time to every day revisit afresh without bias the question of whether the sun will rise in the East or West). However the disparity of applied standards of evidence on the part of AGW doubters appears to be strikingly massive and ubiquitous.

And this is not symmetric. I have never seen AGW supporters claim explicitly or implicitly that AGW should be believed if even a few papers or a few atmospheric scientists support it while the bulk do not; they have accepted and met high levels of evidence (compared to most scientific debates). Nor have AGW supporters demanded that the assertions and hypotheses (such as quoted above) be subject to far stricter standards of evidence than AGW.

Picture an AGW supporter saying "while we will accept the judgement of merely 90%+ of atmospheric scientists as sufficient propensity of evidence upon which to base practical decision making, we demand that doubters achieve the agreement of 98%+ of relevant scientists before accepting that "more CO2 or higher temperatures are more beneficial than harmful" is relevant to practical decision making.

In fact, if you could get 90+ percent of relevant scientists and their publications to agree that after measuring, analyzing, weighing and debating all evidence, "increased CO2 and/or elevated temperatures would have a net positive effect for humans and life on earth" - I believe that a majority of AGW supporters would actually greatly rethink their positions. I know that I would.

But AGW doubters have shown near zero interest in submitting their hypotheses and beliefs to serious scientific scrutiny, much less in applying any fraction of the same standards of evidence they demand of the the other side, to their own assertions.

I think that some of this comes from a profoundly unscientific mindset that grants huge advantages of "high ground" to the perceived "status quo". That is, reducing future emission is considered a "change" which needs complete certainty, consensus and agreement before implementation, while emitting additional scores of gigatonnes of GHG is considered "no change" to our environment and "safe until absolutely proven otherwise" because it's an extension of how things have been done until now.

There might be some psychological or even legal basis of such a bias, but there is no scientific or rational support for it. The bias against "changes in government policy" in favor of "business as usual" is a kind of inertia which has no basis in atmospheric science. Scientifically, adding additional gigatonnes of GHG to the atmosphere *IS* a change, and it would at this stage be more rational policy to make the emitters prove that it's safe.

Imagine if it were different. Society has been built on low emission energy sources for hundreds of years, but there is now a proposal to for the first time burn massive amounts of fossil fuels and release many gigatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Humanity would be rational to ask for some pretty good evidence that this would not upset the natural systems before committing to such a change in course.

The thing is - these two scenarios may invert the societal inertia of "which direction is a change in course", but that's an artifact of social policy; the scientific question of "what's the most likely effect of adding X gigatonnes of GHG in the next century" still remains similar in both scenarios.

I believe that a rational skeptical society would at this stage demand the equivalent of an "environment impact statement" (in US terminology) before approving the addition of large quantities of GHG. The burden of proof should probably be on the emitters if anything, not hugely tilted towards "business as usual".

Even if one doesn't think the question of AGW is "completely settled scientifically", the massive preponderence of scientific judgement and published scientific studies supporting AGW makes it far more than a credible hypothesis or a wild speculation.

That is, the concept that "emitting additional gigatonnes of GHG to the atmostphere will very likely have major and often seriously deleterious effects on the natural and human environment" is not a marginal speculation like "tomorrow the sun will rise in the west" which the functional basis of confirmation bias should protect of from wasting time on. It represents the considered judgement of a very large predonderance of the worlds best scientists after extensive study. Even if some people don't think it's "proven" beyond what they think is reasonable doubt, in a rational and skeptical society that assertion should by now have the high ground and those favoring uncurbed emissions should a bear the burden of evidence at least as high as AGW, rather than incredibly lower.

> That the GW is being used as a rationale for massive government
> intervention in the economy, with all the attendant back-room deals
> and political "donations" to get back out of the way, as per every
> other issue through human history, is not.

Again, the scientific truth of which scenario (more or less emission) is most likely to be beneficial or harmful is not affected by whether a scenario involves government action or inaction, only by what's emitted and the effects thereof. Bringing "massive government intervention" to the discussion is to confuse and confound science with ideology.

Look at it this way - suppose a large asteroid were to be discovered to be on a collision course with the Earth, and 90%+ of astronomers agreed with that conclusion. Would the asteroid's chance of hitting or not hitting the earth depend on whether "massive governmental intervention" was implied in forming a response? Would people whose primary deciding factor regarding actions or inactions was based on their political ideology be the best architects of a rational response to the asteroid, or would evidence based scientists be a better choice?

 

[Trakar]

Welcome to the human race

I think it's amusing you can sit in the comfort of your home, typing on your computer, not wanting for food or water and expecting to live until you're 80, and talk seriously about how bleak the future is because it might be a degree or two warmer in 100 years

I think bleak is more a matter of perspective.

A great many people do think of a lot more than themselves, and the immediate present.

We have already raised the temperature by more than a degree and are seeing impacts today. Best science says between 4.5 and 8 degrees C over the next 100 years and the trend is for this number to increase as our understandings improve, and feedback systems are included into the projections.

Likewise, this is just the start the issue doesn't just fade away by itself, and once the feedbacks come to dominate the system there will be very little we can do to substantively influence the system even with a devoted and determined effort.

"Bleak" is an understatement, "Dire" is about the best we can hope for right now, and that's only if everyone jumps on board very quickly and sacrifices till it more than hurts,...I don't see that happening.

 

[BenBurch]

Umm, not it is not possible that it isn't good. The subject is well understood, from industries you might have heard of .... farming???

Optimal Co2 for greenhouses is 1000-2000 ppm, while atmospheric is 380 or so.

Let's please not be ridiculous or pedantic in the holding of a position, okay?

Except that isn't optimal in greenhouses except for a very few plants. This matter has been extensively studied, and those who have reached opposite conclusions from the one you imagine.

 

[Furcifer]

A great many people do think of a lot more than themselves, and the immediate present.

There are, I've met them, heck I used to be one. It's just hypocritical. To the extent you can't really be taken seriously. Al Gore is a perfect example.

We have already raised the temperature by more than a degree and are seeing impacts today. Best science says between 4.5 and 8 degrees C over the next 100 years and the trend is for this number to increase as our understandings improve, and feedback systems are included into the projections.

Doubtful, even if the models prove accurate. What's important is getting the entire world up to speed, that means more energy and that means more emissions. That's reality, worrying about what might happen 100 years from now is just a distraction. At best, at worst it amounts to classism.

Likewise, this is just the start the issue doesn't just fade away by itself, and once the feedbacks come to dominate the system there will be very little we can do to substantively influence the system even with a devoted and determined effort.

There's a considerable amount of negative feedback still unaccounted for. What happens in the next 30 years or so will be key in figuring out where we're headed. Then again we heard that 30 years ago

"Bleak" is an understatement, "Dire" is about the best we can hope for right now, and that's only if everyone jumps on board very quickly and sacrifices till it more than hurts,...I don't see that happening.

What's truly bleak is the thought that global warming will be used as a excuse to prevent billions of people from having what most of us already enjoy. What I find mildly humorous is the fact that it's this type of thinking that probably got us to this point in history. Well maybe not got us to this point, but hurried us along. If we had shared nuclear technology with the world 50 years ago we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine is that stalling the economy right now based on some incomplete science with the premise of saving future generations is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do. The "solution" to global warming is a strong economy.

 

[Furcifer]

Now you lost me... what exactly would be your definition of a "an overwhelming scientific consensus", if not the above isn't good enough?

If AGW was just about it warming a degree and a half over the last 150 years that would be fine. Obviously it isn't, it's much much more than that.

 

[lomiller]

Umm, not it is not possible that it isn't good. The subject is well understood, from industries you might have heard of .... farming???

Optimal Co2 for greenhouses is 1000-2000 ppm, while atmospheric is 380 or so.

Have you heard that farmers fields are not inside greenhouses?

Some basic biology: plants grow based on their most restricted resource. In a greenhouse where you control all the resources a plant gets CO2 may well be a limiting resource. In a field this is unlikely to be the case.

 

[lomiller]

Welcome to the human race

I think it's amusing you can sit in the comfort of your home, typing on your computer, not wanting for food or water and expecting to live until you're 80, and talk seriously about how bleak the future is because it might be a degree or two warmer in 100 years

I think bleak is more a matter of perspective.

The consensus is that business as usual will result in 2-4 deg C warming over the next 100 years. Added to the warming we have already experienced the upper end of this range places us near the 6 deg C warming seen at the end of a glaciation.

“bleak” doesn’t even begin to describe a world where the US losses 40% of it’s farmland to drought and desertification, China even more, India looses it’s rivers due to changing monsoon patters and fishing becomes a thing of the past due to ocean acidification and hypoxia.

I doubt if it will ever come to that, we have a well demonstrated history of adapting to change.

So despite all the civilizations that have been killed off by climate change, you doubt it will happen this time? Is there any particular reason you think our civilization can dodge this bullet?